Talk:Holy Wrath

The stats listed in the progression for Holy Wrath are for some reason identical to those listed for Retribution; Holy Wrath is a more powerful version however, reflecting 66% rather than 33%, and I believe with ~ 5+3*Attribute maximum damage at each level. As I can't check the progression from here I'll rely on someone else to do so, failing that I'll check once at home, but I will alter the description to match the actual skill on several pages (GWG, TGH, GWO), in addition, the link to the Holy Wrath mesmer build is non-existent, so I may post a version there after consulting a few sources.--Epinephrine 10:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

More Health = more damage?
In builds using Holy Wrath or Retribution, I keep seeing references like, "High maximum health is just for maxing damage from Retribution and Holy Wrath. To achive (sic) highest Damage from Holy Wrath you should have 800+ Health." . Does your health actually have anything to do with the damaged dealt? If so... can someone explain the rationale? Frostty1 19:56, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Those builds usually use Protective Spirit as a way to mitigate damage. In which case, the maximum damage you'll take is 10% of the max health, from which the 66% of Holy Wrath is taken. In effect, under Protective Spirit, Holy Wrath will never damage more than 6.6% of your max health (3.3% for Retribution). --Theeth (talk)   20:07, 16 October 2006 (CDT)

Energy loss
To Mr Anonymous: you added a note stating that if several players cast Holy Wrath on the same target, "the energy loss is divided up between then equally, rounded up". If true, this is a significant and interesting fact. However, due to the controversial nature of the statement (ie. why has no one posted it before?), I believe that a screenshot will be needed in order to prove that this is not a hoax. On a Wiki it is bad to spread false information, even accidentally. Thank you. Entropy 06:39, 30 December 2006 (CST)
 * Yea, just tested it, the two people can both maintain it one one person; however, whoever cast the most recent copy of it will be the only one to take the -10 energy--Thelordofblah 01:55, 25 January 2007 (CST)
 * Couldn't this be abused? Monk with 16 in Smiting cast Holy, Adrenaline based warrior cast a dummy Holy Wrath on same target. Now only the warrior will take -10 energy while monk have energy over for other spells. --Lexxor 15:41, 2 February 2007 (CST)
 * No because since the warrior applied his last, only his holy wrath will have effect and the monk will sit there with -1 energy regen.--Thelordofblah 01:17, 3 February 2007 (CST)
 * If the testing of the skill disproves that the energy IS NOT divided among those that cast, why is this still in the notes months later? As is this is missleading and needs to be removed (I dont trust myself to do it, I always seem to mess up the templets when I work on skill editing). Mystic 12:17, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Because Blah was wrong. --Fyren 19:52, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Uh... what?-- Thelordofblah 22:12, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
 * The note said that energy loss is divided, what you wrote to explain is that only one of the enchanters loses the 10 energy. They are completely different scenarios. --Kale Ironfist 22:17, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
 * tested it, and they must have changed it or something because I dont remember getting a -5 the first time I tested it, otherwise I wouldnt have wrote that.-- Thelordofblah 22:21, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I highly doubt someone made it up, added the note, and then the game changed afterwards. --Fyren 22:59, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
 * FINE! =P I think what I did was i forgot to disable the skill on my hero so he wouldnt remove it, and the effect got all screwed up.-- Thelordofblah 15:25, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Wow didn't watch this discution but with all my edit I didn't think people wouldn't trust me.&mdash; ├ A ratak ┤  15:33, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Still Causes Damage?
Will this skill still cause the damage even if you do not have 10 energy for it to take? I'm very surprised no one has asked this yet. VegaObscura 08:02, 6 January 2007 (CST)
 * It does, nothing suggests otherwise. --Fyren 09:12, 6 January 2007 (CST)