Damage scaled with main stats

General
1

For example, a char has 40 str and the skill thus has 160% increased damage
How is this 160% calculated in the overall formula?
If I have 400% increased physical damage, does it mean I deal 400 + 160 = 560% (6.6x) damage or do I deal 400% x 160% (5x2.6) = 13x damage?

2

As I understand it every different named damage modifier is multiplicative and everything that shares the same name is additive. So the main stat dmg buff is multiplicative with everything else (13x in your example). Edit: This is apperantly all wrong.

3

All %Inc damage is additive. Regardless of itā€™s type.

The only exception here is ā€œenemy take x% increased damageā€, thatā€™s basically a more multiplier.

So to answer your question specifically.

All %Inc. damage from attributes is additive with any other %Inc. damage like %Inc. physical etc.

So this is the correct one

4

And some %increased damage in idols is multiplicative (unless theyā€™ve decided that was a bug and fixed it), specifically Rive and I think Smite and Vengeance?

5

That feels like itā€™s and eternity ago, last time I used the smite/Vengeance idols they did not felt like multiplicative.

But this is a inconsistency anyway or maybe even a bug however it was intended.

6

Iā€™m pretty sure weā€™ve fixed those.

1 Like
7

oh ok I didnā€™t know that thx. But the other thing I said is true right?

If I have 20% fire dmg, 20% elemental dmg, 20% elemental dmg over time, 20% damage over time and 20% spell dmg; a skill that has tags: spell, fire and damage over time, would get all those multiplicated right? and not just 100% damage increase in total?

8

No, everything you listed is additive.

So you would get 100% Inc. damage.

9

oooh ok. thanks. I really didnā€™t know, I guess Iā€™ve been playing all wrong :smiley:

10

Rule of thumb:

Gear and Passives are all additive
Skill Spec Trees are multiplicative

There are certainly exceptions, but generally most of this stuff is described in the Tooltip.

Without going to much into details and making it too complex I think thatā€™s a very good basis.

1 Like
11

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.