Archonix's Guide to EQ2 Equipment Proc Triggers

Hello -

Archonix (best known as EQ2's PvP Dev) posted this information elsewhere. The information is so valuable and useful in my opinion, I wanted to repost it here to make sure it didn't get lost, and so other players would get a chance to see and use it.

All I did was take the information Archonix posted, put it into a table, and added formatting. Nothing was edited or changed.

So the entire issue in question was over two letters "n & y". That's a LITTLE vague lol.

Those guidelines arent even accurate at all. Observe:

This spell clearly states "On a successful attack", therefore, according to the guildlines above, it should only proc on melee, ranged, and damage based combat art attacks. That is exactly how it works, all seems right with the world until we see:

These state the exact same "On a successful attack", however both of these procs will trigger off of spells. Evidentally these spells should read "On any succesful attack", but they dont and off the top of my head I cant think of a single time I have seen that wording with the word ANY on anything. I could be wrong, but regardless, these guildlines are not followed at all in game and the players are mislead and have to find out how exactly things proc on an item to item basis.
Furthermore, a spell attack is defined as "Any damage-based spell". Thats not right either:

The above is not considered a spell attack. I have an item that adds additional heat damage on every single spell attack and this spell will not trigger it. The spell is clearly damage based, but has never counted as a spell attack. This is just one of many examples of how this description given is completely wrong.
You may notice I can prove that more than one of these provided descriptions dont hold up using just one characters repitoire of spells. How many inconsistancies could be found if I wasnt so lazy and used all 24 classes? Heck look at these two weapons:

The one on the left (Qeynos Kililj) as any ranger worth anything knows, will proc the damage attack off of their ranged attacks. That follows the description given, however there are only about 4 weapons in game that actually do this. The weapon on the right (Right Hand of the Highpriestess) has the exact same proc description in terms of wording but does not proc off the ranged attack like it should according to the guildlines.
The point of all this is, the developers cant even stick to whatever proc guidelines they have. There are just far too many and for no reason at all. Keep On a successful melee/ranged attack. Remove the ANY crap and just have On a successful attack work for everything, all physical and magical based attacks. Spell attack needs to go away and just stick to hostile or beneficial spells. Dont give us a set of guidelines attempting to clarify everything when it doesnt even hold up to things at first glance.

I'll agree that if your Right Hand of the High Priestess isn't proccing off your range attacks, the label description on that item is incorrect according to Archonix's info. I have one of those but I'm a defiler, so can't check it against range attacks or combat arts, only melee attacks to confirm whether it is incorrect or not. Regarding the rest of your comments, please note that the description of this post says it is about "Equipment Proc Triggers". All of your other comments are about spell effects, so I'm not sure if they apply. Regarding your comments about spell attack procs on spells - I do know that spell attacks like my Matron bracelet, which are stated to proc on every spell attack, only proc on the first tick of a spell attack that is a dot. So if you are judging how often an equipment proc triggers on damage over time spells based on a spell attack proc on the item, that would be a very small percentage of the time, and on the first tick only. The two player experts I'd most accept an opinion on regarding the validity of Archonix's information is Calaglin from Nektulos, and Illuminator from Permafrost, if either of them would be kind enough to comment.

I guess I'd also like to point out that out of the thousands and thousands of items in this game, which have been designed and maintained by over several dozen different people at this point, it should come as no surprise when some of them have an incorrect label description. My understanding is that Archonix was working on finalizing this list as the standard for use by item designers in the future. I don't think he intended to say that this list would be exactly correct for all past items. I believe the list is intended to accurately reflect what a proc does on all new items that drop. I'm not sure that he intended to make a statement that every item ever created in EQ2 exactly conforms to these rules as of today.

Mermidon wrote:

On any succesful attack is being added with GU32. The list above is correct, albeit missing the note about the change to the first item below. From the original post:

Archonix arrives and I gotta redo my 3 paragraphs.

Archonix wrote:

The difference between "a" and "any" is confusing enough to suggest a rephrase. I'd change "On a successful attack" to "On a successful physical attack". Or "non-magic". You get the picture.

But the question also needs to be asked: why isn't Shattered Terrain being considered a spell attack? Is it a simple oversight? I'm told there are other spells (esp for Illusionist) that aren't being properly tagged as spell attacks and it's hurting proc rates accordingly.

Thanks for the clarification Archonix. Yeah, I left that extra info out, sorry, my bad. So this is merely a guide about how procs work in general as of the next patch. This is not intended as a bible, or a firm spec, about how procs will always work for all previous and future items. Thank you again.

This change is very welcome, it's confusing with dirge buffs and such trying to figure out what does and what doesn't proc damage.

Hmmm, I thought Ember Seed was supposed to proc off spell damage also. Guess not. Glad this is being clarified, but I think the difference between "On a Successful Attack" and "On any Successful Attack" might still confuse some people.

It would be amazing if ember seed proced off spell damage

Mermidon wrote:

Looked into this one case specifically, and it should be causing spell triggers to proc. Looks like a fix that is included with GU32 addresses an issue where certain spells that included both damage events and Daze events were being passed over as viable triggers for spell procs.

X'haviz's Gown of Glory says on a sucessful hostile spell, but monks are listed as those that can wear it. Will a monk's CA let it proc? I've been told yes before but now with this list, it dosen't seem like it. Any clarification would be appreicated.

Monk CA's are not spells, though some dirge CA's are considered spells.

Bayne wrote:

Don't hold your breath. In fact I still think it's mistake that Brawlers could wear this robe. What about Priests? This robe should be flagged as mage/priest only and left at that.

Archonix wrote:

The same thing happends with Combat arts (specificly amazing reflexes) Could you check into that one and make sure combat arts get the same fix =)

This robe shouldn't even exist in its current loot table. How about we leave it at that.

Very nice info.
But this is also pointing out that there are TOO many vague expressions which player need to check this list to fully understand.
It shouldn't be like this at first place.

For example, "On a successful spell attack", which refer to damaged-base spell attack, excluding hostile spells that not yeilds any dmg, why just make say "on a successful damage-based spell attack" than "on a successful spell attack" which can be taken as "any hostile spell attack".



On any successful attack (Recent change by Aeralik based on feedback) > On a successful any physical based and damage based spell attack
Any melee attack, ranged attack, damage-based combat arts, damage-based spells

On a successful attack > On a successful any physical based attack
Any melee attack, ranged attack, damage-based combat art

On a successful melee attack
Any melee attack

On a successful ranged attack
ranged attack, ranged combat arts

When target uses a combat art
Target uses a combat art.

When target casts a spell
Any spells

When target casts a beneficial spell
Any non hostile spell

When target casts a healing spell
Any healing spell

On a successful hostile spell
Any non-beneficial type spells

When target surpasses X% health
Health is > % specified

When target falls below X% health
Health is < % specified

On a successful spell attack > On a successful damage-based spell attack
Any damage-based spells

When target dies
You got pwned

When target is healed
Any healing spell applied

When target strikes a death blow
Your target got pwned

When target blocks
Your target blocks you

When target deflects
Your target deflects

When target dodges
Your target dodges

When target parries
Your target parries

When target ripostes
Your target ripostes

On a successful riposte
You riposte

On a successful block
You block

On a successful deflection
You deflect

On a successful parry
You parry

When target is damaged in combat > When target is damaged with melee in combat
You take any melee damage

When target is damaged
You take any damage

When target is damaged with a ranged weapon
You take ranged damage

When target is damaged with a spell
You take spell damage

Erk, besides some chopped English, I think your suggestions to the current slate for LU #32 is a bit haywire. The only one needing change is the "On a successful attack" to "On a successful physical attack" -- everyone pretty much assumes CAs to equate to physical and Spells to equate to...well...spell damage.

Just a little something I've noticed on my 70 Paladin ALT toon-
Some abilities LISTED in your Spells "Chapter" of your Knowledge Book are, indeed, Combat Arts.
Likewise, SOME abilities LISTED in your Combat Arts "Chapter" of your Knowledge Book are, indeed, Combat Arts.

Now to answer the question "How do I tell the Difference?" There's an amazingly simple answer-
IF the Ability Description lists "Resistability" it is a SPELL.
IF the Ability Description lists "Hit Bonus" it is a COMBAT ART.
~ADDITIONALLY~ ALL "Procs" are considered SPELLS for the sake of Critical Chances. Yes, even if they deal physical damage types (pierce/slash/crush).

Perfect example of incorrect Ability Listing:
Extinguish Will (Paladin, 67) and its predecessors are listed in the Spells "Chapter" of the Knowledge Book. However, they have the "Hit Bonus" descriptor, and does NOT critical 68% of the time, or even remotely close to it, as achieved by my 8-Rank Critical Spells AA in the Crusader INT line - I used this as a way of confirming my suspicion that Extinguish Will was indeed a physical attack despite being listed in the Spells section. It rarely criticals at all, and given I have NO ranks in melee criticals (my Paladin has not a single point spent in the STA line where melee crits are found) nor have his Mark of the Awakened yet, this is perfectly expected. BOTH of his Paladin-given Procs, however (the groupwide buff and personal buff) crit +/- 65% of the time (within an appropriate range of the expected 68%) as do Relentless Conviction, Brimstone, Castigate, Consecrate, Refusal of Conviction, Hallowed Judgement, and Legionnaire's Smite (heh), all of which have the "Resistability" tag rather than the "Hit Bonus" tag. It bears to note that Legionnaire's Smite is found in neither the Spells nor CA section, but is placed within the general Abilities "Chapter" similar to all KoS "bonus abilities" that I can think of.
I hope this helps sort some things out for some people at any rate.
-Hadanelith Raswrolski / Mossda Odis'Ossda, Kithicor Server


PS: It's very early in the morning and I didn't feel like logging into the game to check this one little thing, but "Hit Bonus" may actually be worded as "Hit Chance," I couldn't recall at the time of this post. The point is, it can in NO way be mistaken for "Resistability."