Xbox servers are restarting in:
They should be back up in approximately 120 minutes.
PS4 servers are restarting in:
They should be back up in approximately 120 minutes.

Added Fire Damage

Added Fire damage doesn't increase existing Fire damage. Instead, it adds Fire damage based on how much Physical damage is dealt. No physical damage -> no benefit.
Argh, and here I thought I could slap on added fire damage supports on fire trap and flame totem (once I can get one). Compared to the other added support gems, this one acts differently.
For Ranger build tips, tactics, and critiques, visit this thread:

Some items in this post are currently unavailable.
From looking at this gem on the wiki and the effect of quality on it I have a question on how it effects the damage. Assuming the wiki is correct and each 1% quality adds .5% fire damage is that .5% of the fire damage that is dealt by this support gem or .5% added with what ever the gem is already at or seperate from the gem entirely and modifies all fire damage done by the player? Like a lvl 1 gem with 2%quality. Would that be 21% of physical damage added as fire or 20% of the physical as fire then take 1% of that fire damage and add it again? This would also help me understand how that works for the melee damage support gem which has a similar quality characteristic. I am assuming it will be like the first example but wanted to double check.
Last edited by hobo789 on Dec 6, 2012, 3:14:50 PM
1) quality is 0.75% fire damage increase per quality %.
2) it is "just" increased fire damage, so it affects every fire damage to linked skills.

3) added fire damage works like this for physical: if a skill does 100 damage and has this support with 20% quality (15% fire damage increase) and 40% physical boost. then 100 *0.3 = 30 fire base then 100 *1.4 = 140 physical damage total then 30 *1.15 = 34.5 fire damage total.
this support works off the base physical which is either the weapon's stats used for the skill or the mouse-over of the linked gem itself for ether knives or bear trap or shockwave totem (not the skill hover shown in skill bar).
Ya the skill hover is the total dps. But I think your assumption on the base physical damage is off. I am using glacial hammer and I have increased it with the meele gem and added elemental. According to you it would go in this order. Base damage turn 50% of that into cold then apply the melee damage and ele damage to their respective damage types and add that for total damage. But i have noticed that the melee damage increase will also increase the cold damage. So i think your math should be with 40% melee dmg and 30% gem and quality of 15% (100*1.40)+(140*.3)(1.15) Ill have to double check my glacial hammer math when i get off work.
1) The gem itself inside inventory or inside a slot will show base values before increases. The hover in skill bar shows total effects. Sorry i mentioned this, it was only for the three physical related skills that did not use a weapon for the damage.

2) About glacial hammer: that's because glacial is convert, not add. Converting takes the source's specific increases and merges the value to the destination's increases. That has already been explained on the respective page's thread and also lightning arrow's skill thread.

If you have both added fire AND glacial hammer, things get a bit weird. 200 base physical for this, 40% physical, 30% elemental, and 20% quality lv 1 added fire (15% fire increase) with lv 1 glacial hammer.

200 * 0.5 = 100 cold base
100 base phys * 0.2 = 20 fire base.

100 physical * 1.4 = 140 physical total
100 cold * (1+ 0.4 +0.3) = 170 cold damage total
20 fire * (1+ 0.3 +0.15) = 29 fire damage totel
Last edited by soul4hdwn on Dec 7, 2012, 5:33:19 PM
Ok, you actually confused me there for a bit, so I even tested it.
And I now strongly believe what I believed before:
Conversion does not reduce the added fire damage from Added Fire Damage.

I used EK, base damage 250-375, actual damage on char: 260-390.

With added Fire damage, it's 260-390 Physical, and 105-158 Fire.
Now I put on Hrimsorrow gloves, converting 25% of Physical damage to cold, the result being

195-293 Physical, 78-116 cold, and 105-158 Fire.

If added fire damage only used the remaining portion of Fire damage, then using blackgleam would actually reduce it's effect...
Also, using Darkscorn, Blackgleam, and Hrimsorrow would result in no Physical damage remaining, and thus no effect at all, which I don't believe to be the case, either.
It stands to assume that added X works the same as conversion, only without taking anything away afterwards.

I suppose this helps:

Mark_GGG wrote:
So...a 100 physical damage attack having 30% added as fire and 50% of it converted from physical to fire would do a total of:

50 Physical Damage
80 Fire Damage

Is this correct?

If it helps to think about it this way, "convert 50% of physical damage to fire" is the same thing as "Add 50% of physical damage as fire, and remove 50% of physical damage"

So in your example, you have:
Add 30% physical as fire
Add 50% physical as fire and subtract 50% physical

which obviously totals to adding 80% of your physical damage as fire damage, and losing 50% of your physical damage, leaving you with the 80 fire and 50 physical.

Taken from this thread.
Global chat: Mechanics for A work one way, B for another, C for a third but also with A, B uses C but not A, and D uses A&B but not C

Isn't a "no" better than an ignore?
i figured i had order wrong somewhere but convert still happens differently than added as the person was confused about.

also dev explained that multiple converting effects can still happen, yes at a reduction and skills seem to take priority in strength as equipbased already happened first. think someone said to me that if i use lightning arrow after the three uniques you listed, then the three converts are reduced by half to let the lightning arrow gets its effect.
It takes skills first, then uses the others, yes.
However, added damage should be calculated anyways, as it doesn't substract anything.
Global chat: Mechanics for A work one way, B for another, C for a third but also with A, B uses C but not A, and D uses A&B but not C

Isn't a "no" better than an ignore?

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info