docturphil
Grandfathered
So I got my https://www.wowhead.com/item=71086/dragonwrath-tarecgosas-rest! It's pretty neat. Unfortunately the proc is not quite as good as I was expecting. Here is what I've found:
TL;DR
9% proc chance on dots against a level 85
Only dots proc and not direct damage spells
Does not proc against a level 120 target
It only procs on dot ticks. Out of 208 dot ticks, 19 procd "Wrath of Tarecgosa". That's a 9.13% proc chance, which is consistent with reports on wowhead post proc chance nerf. Note this was against a level 85 target dummy. More on that later.
Now, I did read that the Wrath of Tarecgosa only show up in your combat log from dots, and your direct damage spells should show up in your combat log as two of the same spell. For example, if I casted Solar Wrath one time and the staff procd I should see two separate entries for Solar Wrath in my combat log.
So what I did to test direct damage spells was create a macro for Solar Wrath to clear my combat log and then cast Solar Wrath. This way it would be very obvious if it procd. I would either see one Solar Wrath in my combat log or two if it procd. I probably casted using this macro about 100 times. I didn't see a single proc. Not a single one.
So at this point I'm pretty certain it does not proc on direct damage spells, which tells me one of two things. Either it's bugged, or Blizzard intended to disable the proc but didn't completely get it right. I feel like it's just bugged because why would they do that?
Now, I mentioned the proc chance against a level 85 target dummy. When using dots on a level 120 target dummy I did not see it proc at all. So I believe the proc chance is dependent on your target's level and not your level. I'd like to do more tests against a level 89 target to see what it should be in IPvP.
More tests are needed for science, but this is what I've observed so far. My conclusion thus far is that the staff is great for affliction warlocks and shadow priests, probably BiS for balance druids, and kinda meh for shamans and mages.
Let's hope Blizzard fixes the direct damage spells proc. I'll probably open a GM ticket on it.
TL;DR
9% proc chance on dots against a level 85
Only dots proc and not direct damage spells
Does not proc against a level 120 target
It only procs on dot ticks. Out of 208 dot ticks, 19 procd "Wrath of Tarecgosa". That's a 9.13% proc chance, which is consistent with reports on wowhead post proc chance nerf. Note this was against a level 85 target dummy. More on that later.
Now, I did read that the Wrath of Tarecgosa only show up in your combat log from dots, and your direct damage spells should show up in your combat log as two of the same spell. For example, if I casted Solar Wrath one time and the staff procd I should see two separate entries for Solar Wrath in my combat log.
So what I did to test direct damage spells was create a macro for Solar Wrath to clear my combat log and then cast Solar Wrath. This way it would be very obvious if it procd. I would either see one Solar Wrath in my combat log or two if it procd. I probably casted using this macro about 100 times. I didn't see a single proc. Not a single one.
So at this point I'm pretty certain it does not proc on direct damage spells, which tells me one of two things. Either it's bugged, or Blizzard intended to disable the proc but didn't completely get it right. I feel like it's just bugged because why would they do that?
Now, I mentioned the proc chance against a level 85 target dummy. When using dots on a level 120 target dummy I did not see it proc at all. So I believe the proc chance is dependent on your target's level and not your level. I'd like to do more tests against a level 89 target to see what it should be in IPvP.
More tests are needed for science, but this is what I've observed so far. My conclusion thus far is that the staff is great for affliction warlocks and shadow priests, probably BiS for balance druids, and kinda meh for shamans and mages.
Let's hope Blizzard fixes the direct damage spells proc. I'll probably open a GM ticket on it.
