Wikia

WoWWiki

Talk:Spell hit

102,225pages on
this wiki

Back to page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spell hit article.

Be polite
Assume good faith
Be welcoming

Past discussions archived to...

Frost "ghost hit" Edit

In the table showing how much hit is needed to be capped against various levels, frost mages are shown at 6% instead of 3%. The explanation is "Frost mages with Elemental Precision (frostbolts receive double benefit due to Ghost Hit), Shaman with Elemental Precision". Ghost hit doesn't link to anything, and I've never heard the term before. I think some explanation (or a page for Ghost hit) would be helpful. Owldark 09:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

According to part V of http://elitistjerks.com/f31/t18441-mage_sweet_informational_thread/, For arcane mages, the cap is 76 rating. For fire and frost mages, that number is 164 rating., but part X lists a bug saying Frostbolt gains an additional 1% hit per a point in Elemental Precision. I'm going to change to description to say that it's a bug, and should be 164. If someone has better information, please feel free to edit accordingly, including providing a "Ghost hit" page, if that's a real thing, rather than a colloquial term. --Murph (talk · contr) 05:43, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
It seems to be the real deal; I'll trust elitest jerks to say it only applies to Frostbolt. However, it is quite obviously unintended; see tooltip for Elemental Precision. --Sky (t · c · w) 09:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think EJ have about the best and most accurate collection of information on class mechanics. I have put frost mages back into what I believe is the intended spell hit cap, with a (hopefully) clear note about the bug. --Murph (talk · contr) 10:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It's been a known bug for quite a while, but I consider it a bug not a feature of frostbolt. It's behaving like the old Elemental Precision, like a database error where they forgot to change one number in the table of spells affected by the talent. I'm surprised it hasn't been fixed yet. --Piu (?!) 00:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually the prevailent theory on Elitist Jerks is that it is related to frostbolt being a binary spell. There are no signs the bug will be fixed anytime soon, and it has been this way throughout Burning Crusade. It is very safe for frost mages to gear for 126 hit at the moment, as it's doubtful to be fixed before Lich King (if then). I'd personally rather see the table list frost mages as 3% higher hit as opposed to with fire mages and a footnote that people may miss when reading the page to decide how to gear their characters. If the bug is ever fixed the table could be updated at that time. (Even ahead of time if it's fixed during a PTR phase; people are always testing to see if it's fixed each patch.) Xentropy 00:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The way I see it, the bug does not reduce the hit cap for frost mages in general, only for 1 particular spell, frostbolt. While that may be their primary nuke, I think it's more accurate to represent the general hit cap, with a note that there's a bug giving an advantage on that one spell. Or have I got it wrong, and somehow the frostbolt bug causes gives extra spell hit for other spells too? --Murph (talk · contr) 01:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Murph here. People should gear for 3% from EP, so that they don't expect the bug to stick around. This also allows for customization of gear; the thought process is that it's easier to reduce one's hit than it is to increase it if you find the gear for it. --Sky (t · c · w) 01:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope, just frostbolt, but one casts nothing else at bosses, and spell hit is only of real importance while fighting bosses. As for overgearing, you can if you wish, but a bug that's been in the game 15 months means using too much hit for way longer than I'd ever want to. Especially now that for just 60 badges you can get a ring that makes up almost the entire difference in one slot. Blizzard is throwing hit gear at us at this point. I'll leave Murph's change in place; I just hope no frost mages out there think they ever need over 126 hit after reading the current version. --Xentropy 14:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


Spell hit rating caps for level 70 ????? Edit

What? I don't understand a word of this "explanation" - couldn't someone rewrite it in a clearer language? --Crash (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Reworks for WotLK Edit

The article will need major rewrite for WotLK. The following change are confirmed:

  • Spell and melee hit merged
  • No more permanent 1% miss - you need 1% more hit to cap
  • Ghost hit for Frostbolt is gone
  • All kinds of changes to talents and skills that give hit
  • Information about hit caps for level 80 characters need to be added

--Aigarius (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Finished editing spell hit's page Edit

I've finished editing the spell hit page to reflect 3.0.2's changes to hit talents, spells and the 100% cap. The page will still probably need some revamping once Wrath officially hits and people learn the mechanics of spell hit at 80, but the page is now cleaner and fewer changes will need to be made once that time comes.

Ciantherix (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi (hopefully I've formatted this correctly) I believe the hit rating amounts in the 'Spell hit rating caps for level 70" table are wrong. The cap level is now 215, not 202. So that should move them all up by 12.6 For example, shadow priest with both the 3% talent and misery need 139 hit rating to cap, not 126. Econner (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Econner
You are correct; I should have noted I was "partially finished", as I'm sure there would be a little touch-up that could be done. I'm guessing, however, that you didn't save changes, as the history shows nothing and the chart is unchanged. I'll get that done quickly. Thanks for letting me know.
Ciantherix (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


Merging with hit Edit

There's a note at the top of the page suggesting that this page be merged with physical hit. I'd have to say I think it's a bad idea. While the number comes from the same stat, the mechanics are quite different, not to mention the amount of hit rating needed to get a 1% increase. For instance, it makes a huge difference that a warrior's taunt's hit chance is determined as if it were a spell (on a related note, linking spell-like physical effects to this page might be nice). Another example is how +hit affects +crit for casters. Due to the physical attack table system, melee dps and casters have different priorities when it comes to hit and crit.

Also, having separate pages for physical and spell hit allows people (including me - I've used this page quite often for my spellcasters) to quickly research how much +hit they need for a given purpose. If the articles are merged, it'll basically mean an article twice as big and dense, and half as convenient. As it is, the pages work as both detailed explanations and quick reference guides, and succeed at both. As long as there's a link to physical hit somewhere on the page (and there is), I think combining the pages would only make the mechanics seem even more confusing then they already are. Owldark (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that they should not be merged. What changed in 3.0.2 was item budgeting - hit rating is a single merged stat used for calculating spell hit and melee hit. The way a hit is calculated is still quite different. We just need to clarify how hit is calculated from the rating. Kjallstrom (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreeing with not merging. Only the hit rating stat was changed, not the mechanics. Spell hit and melee hit are still separate, and all talents I know of that give hit chance only affect one of the two. Virtually no numbers are consistent between the two, and both articles are rather long. Merging them would just lead to one very unwieldy 'super article' that would most likely end up being split into smaller articles to actually be readable anyway. - Alltat (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree with not merging at present. I've only really just started researching spell hit for level 80, but it does appear that it's sufficiently different to physical hit to merit its own article. --Murph (talk · contr) 18:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Also agree with not merging. You can think of "spell hit" and "melee hit" as two seperate mechanics measured in absolute percentage numbers, with "hit rating" being one thing that affects that number. Certain talents and buffs also affect that number, and they are included here as well. --Piu (?!) 17:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Also agree with not merging, can we remove the merge note at the top of the page? WoWWiki-Daos (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Since a month has gone by with only opinions against merging, I have decided to be bold and remove the merge tag. If anyone has an opinion to support merging, please feel free to provide it. --Murph (talk · contr) 10:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Level 80 Edit

I've updated the article with information for level 80. I have used 25.40 as the rating for 1% spell hit at 80, based on http://thottbot.com/r7. On digging around, it appears that there's some sources quoting 26.23, but they seem to be relatively old (version 3.0.1.8970 - http://elitistjerks.com/f31/t29453-combat_ratings_level_80_a/). I've not had time to read all of the threads floating around on it, but the range of numbers for 17% spell hit seems to be roughly 415-445, so the information I've added is approximately correct for now. If someone can find more accurate and current information on it from credible sources, please feel free to update, or provide the sources and numbers, and I'll do the update for you. Remember that older information from credible sources is not necessarily accurate, as there have been significant tweaks between 3.0 and 3.0.3. --Murph (talk · contr) 18:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I did a regression on spell hit values showing in my character page, so I can confirm that in 3.0.3 live, for a paladin at level 80, the spell hit conversion is 26.25 for 1%. I don't have any reason to think it's different for any other caster, so I am editing the page to reflect this result. --Urgonzigh 22:48 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Having done some more research on this, I eventually found the following little gem in the RatingBuster notes: /script DEFAULT_CHAT_FRAME:AddMessage(GetCombatRatingBonus(8)) (it used 9 for crit - 8 gives spell hit, per API_GetCombatRatingBonus). This retrieves the current spell hit %age via the game API with much higher precision than normally displayed. On testing various combinations of gear at level 80, I'm strongly convinced that the correct number is 26.23 per 1%, to 4 significant figures (26.231993 to 8SF). This is also consistent with both the number given and the 70 to 80 formula on combat rating system. I'm going to change the page to reflect that number. --Murph (talk · contr) 01:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Data Gathered In Game. (Level 80)

Hit Rating  % To Hit
61 2.33
08 0.30
17 0.65
13 0.50
23 0.88
22 0.84
44 1.68
45 1.72
83 3.16
135 5.15
193 7.36
30 1.14
30 1.14
30 1.14
30 1.14

Any hit % (HP) can be calculated using the hit rating (HR) as follows:

HR * 0.038 = HP

Marxtini (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Not trying to debunk your work, but the amount of hit used in your chart is probably too low to get the accurate results this page usually has. 0.038% (with rounding) yields a range of 25.974025974 to 26.666666667 hit rating per 1% hit chance. That's a wide range of error in the world of theorycraft. DeepMagic Cy (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
It's really a question of mathematical precision - 0.038% is only accurate to 2 significant figures. 26.23 is accurate to 4 significant figures, or 26.231993 to 8SF and the real number used by the game most likely has an even higher level of precision. It's a fairly small point, but it makes the difference between, eg being capped at 446 or 447 - 446*0.038 = 16.948 (i.e. not quite capped), but 446/26.23 = 17.003 (i.e. capped). Personally, I think the numbers are both easier to look at and easier to work with when expressed as a rating per 1% (rather than % per rating), as there are less digits to work with (4, rather than 6 for roughly the same level of accuracy). It's also consistent with the way it has been historically presented, and other sources of the same and related information, eg combat rating system. --Murph (talk · contr) 02:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Exactly right Murph, precision in these numbers is important. At least to the point where we calculate the hit cap correctly. Thanks for fixing the page. If you need to check an exact combat rating value like this you can run something like /script DEFAULT_CHAT_FRAME:AddMessage("Spell Hit Rating: " .. GetCombatRating(6) .. ", + Spell Hit Chance: " .. GetCombatRatingBonus(6) .. ", Rating Per Hit: " .. GetCombatRating(6)/GetCombatRatingBonus(6)) to display as many digits of precision as the WoW client can provide. Zalambar (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Level difference -3 100%? Edit

I notice that the chance to hit a target 3 levels below the caster was changed from 99% to 100% when the cap was raised from 99% to 100%. I wonder if this is accurate, or if it requires -4 to give automatic 100% hit (and -3 is still 99%). Does anyone have a source for this being 100%? --Murph (talk · contr) 08:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Having thought about this for 24 hours, I'm reasonably convinced that the recent change wouldn't alter the spell hit against target level -3. I'm going to amend the table accordingly, in the belief that it will be more accurate. If anyone has better information, please feel free to amend it and share the source with us. --Murph (talk · contr) 08:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Explanation of the Explanation Edit

Perhaps if you have a higher maths degree this makes sense, but to me its utter nonsense, those tables make no sense apart from getting a vague sense of "the higher the better". So if someone could write an explanation of the explanation that would be marvelous. --Crash (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The subject as a whole is relatively complex, and the article attempts to provide reasonably comprehensive documentation. If you don't care for the theorycraft and explanation, just ignore it and skip to the table at Spell hit#Hit rating caps for level 70 & 80. That table can't really be simplified, as spell hit varies significantly for each class and talent spec. Just identify the row of the table that applies to you from the notes provided and read off the number from the "83" column - that's your required hit rating to be hit capped on current end-game raid content. --Murph (talk · contr) 19:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Level 70? Edit

Is there still a high demand for the level 70 information? Even most of the private servers have upgraded at this point. If I get the go ahead, I'll change the article to reflect level 80 only; that will reduce quite a bit of the clutter on the page. But if there's still a demand... well, that's why we use the talk page first =) Hinata Soul (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think anything that clutters the page lowers it's usability. It probably depends on what you see as the page's audience. My guess would be that styling the page for fresh level 80 raiding players that's told "Hoi - you need to figure out your spell-hit. You miss way to much on a bossfight." makes sense. If there's demand for Vanilla or BC information then maby make separate pages for that? Spell_Hit(60) and Spell_Hit(70) and link them at the top. Oisteink (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Arcane mages hit Edit

As far as I know arcane mages can get 6% hit from talents. For a alliance mage this means that if both a dranei buff and the boss is debuffed (imp faerie fire/misery) your hit-cap is 184. Could this be reflected somewhere on the page?

Arcane Mages can achieve as high as 7% Spell Hit through Arcane Focus, Precision, and Heroic Presence. Combined with Improved Faerie Fire or Misery, an Arcane Mage can have as high as 10% passive hit. In this unique case, a level 80 Mage would only need 184 hit rating to achieve a 100% chance to hit. Without Heroic Presence, this number increases to 210.
I'm one step ahead of you bud =D That was a while ago I added that though; no sense in updating the chart though, not enough information. Hinata Soul (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
/blush - I didn't read that far down. The article is a bit complex. I know it's a complex issue, but all the info seems scattered. Putting the 'Increasing spell hit' table closer to the 'Hit rating caps for level 70 & 80' table might help inexperienced players to figure out their numbers. The math could come further down the page IMO as it will only [make sense/be intresting] to a few of the readers. Oisteink (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

importance of hit? Edit

This may seem like a ridiculous question, but exactly how crucial IS spell hit? I was in a 25nax run with another dest lock who was pulling 5k+dps, and he is only rocking 276 hit. I'm fully capped and I was pulling 3.2. the only difference is ~150sp, 1.5% crit, and 150 haste. we both have 3/3 Suppression.

I'm wondering (and this is just curiosity so please don't flame me too hard), taking into consideration buffs and whatnot, is it possible to make up for less-than full hit percentage with just the sheer-bravado of power. He can probably self-buff (fel armor, food, lifetap glyph, etc) to 3.7kish, I can get up to 3.2k; yet with that 300 additional, he way out-dps'd my 0% chance to miss with a 3% chance to miss. So, at least from where I'm sitting, there seems to be some logic in sacrificing a percent or 2 of hit if it buffs your SP/haste/Crit substantially.

Maybe it was a fluke, I don't know; but it's something worth mentioning so that somebody can come along and disprove it or affirm it, since I can't be the only person who's had this observation of SP>Hit

Kheetah (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You were in a 25 man naxx. Chances are, you had a shadow priest or boomkin that casted the 3% hit debuff. That would make his hitcap 289. That means he was a little below his hitcap, but being within .6% is not a big deal. He might miss one spell an entire boss fight, which wouldn't factor much into dps anyway.
Also, there are many other factors. RNG's factor into dps alot, and did you take into account everything?
In summary, you forgot to take into account the debuff, is what it sounds like. If you want a full ranking of how much dps you get from stats, look at http://code.google.com/p/simulationcraft/wiki/SampleOutputT8 . But, in short, each point of hit grants you 3.2 additional dps, whereas spellpower (a 1-1 trade in item stats) only gives you 1.52 more dps. Haste gives you 1.41 though, so keep it in mind that haste IS a significant stat. But for every caster, hit is ALWAYS the most important stat until cap.
Hinata Soul (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


Trick is, thrash mobs aren't boss level so you don't need to be hit capped there. You are actually over hit cap for thrash. Only place where you "need" to be capped are bosses, so if you looked stats of whole run, it's reasonable he did more damage as some of your stats were wasted on thrash. It's quite possible other warlock is a better player than you, too. Basically, for your current stats and gear you can calculate how much hit helps you, that's at least easy with caster classes. From my experience and math I did, it was always worth capping hit on bosses, as hit is best 1-to-1 stat for caters. Missed spells cause both bad rotation and significant DPS loss.
Ewyll (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


Hit in the context of DoTs Edit

Once a dot is placed, is each tick guaranteed to do damage, or does each tick get its own hit roll? Is it the same for all different kinds of DoTs?

--Radeex (talk) 03:16, September 9, 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, so sorry it took over two months to reply! In case you hadn't figured it out yet, once a DoT is applied, it sticks for the full duration (unless dispelled). Each tick does not have a seperate chance to hit. This only applied to crit on some dots, where each tick has a chance to crit. In 3.3, however, Priest DoT's will also be affected by Haste Hinata Soul (talk) 17:09, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Rogue hit mechanics Edit

I re-added rogues to the hit table on this page as I believe the hit chance for their poisons still uses spell hit mechanics. Zalambar (talk) 05:54, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification (I undoed the original edit with the Rogue poisons as I had no idea that they were related to spell hit in any way). Maybe there should be some clarification as for why it is included? IconSmall Shaman Gamaron (T · C) 20:59, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki