The spellstrike is gonna give me more spell damage and hit, but the battlecast set has way more stam and intel.
It appears overall the spellstrike set is better, but just curious if the battlecast is worth getting instead.
Sorry I can't link anything, pretty noob at this plus i'm at work which blocks some websites.
Thanks for the help.
- Forums
- World of Warcraft
- Class Discussion
- Spellstrike vs Battlecast
Spellstrike vs BattlecastFollow
You could always link them from here. 
It's situational. For raiding/PvE, Spellstrike Reigns Supreme. For PvP, Battlecast > Spellstrike.
It's situational. For raiding/PvE, Spellstrike Reigns Supreme. For PvP, Battlecast > Spellstrike.
Spellstrike.
Pvp gear comes from pvp and/or alterac valley.
Pvp gear comes from pvp and/or alterac valley.
Yeah, plan on doing the bg's for some welfare epics and getting a 2v2 and/or 3v3 team and be content with just losing 10 games a week for the points until I get a little better geared and experienced with the arenas on the mage.
Just wanted to see if any number cruncher could determine if the big increase in stam and intel from the battlecast would be more of a benefit over the increased spell damage/hit from the spellstrike.
Given that either set requires a hefty investment, no way i'm going to get both sets. My hunter is going broke just helping to fund the spellfire set :P.
I guess what I really want to know is if the spellstrike is really that superior, why would anybody get the battlecast set at all, especially since the battlecast is much more expensive to make?
I am looking forward to shortly after I get my mage to 70 to crushing the other mages in my guild's dps, even though they have been raiding and getting gear for months <insert maniacal laugh>.
Just wanted to see if any number cruncher could determine if the big increase in stam and intel from the battlecast would be more of a benefit over the increased spell damage/hit from the spellstrike.
Given that either set requires a hefty investment, no way i'm going to get both sets. My hunter is going broke just helping to fund the spellfire set :P.
I guess what I really want to know is if the spellstrike is really that superior, why would anybody get the battlecast set at all, especially since the battlecast is much more expensive to make?
I am looking forward to shortly after I get my mage to 70 to crushing the other mages in my guild's dps, even though they have been raiding and getting gear for months <insert maniacal laugh>.
The Battlecast set is essentially worthless imo since it offers significantly less damage while raiding when compared to the Spellstrike set. Also, both Spellstrike and Battlecast sets are unusable in competitive PvP due to a lack of resilience. Meaning, the Spellstrike set is competitive in one format (PvE), while the Battlecast set is never really very competitive. I hope this helps.
Well unless your tanking in Gruuls ;0}
Alluminatti wrote:
Well unless your tanking in Gruuls ;0}
you can quite easily buy some greens on the AH that will do the trick instead of wasting hundreds of gold on them for only that purpose.
Battlecast is the worst thing I've ever bought..
Recent Visitors: 36
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (36)
- Forums
- World of Warcraft
- Class Discussion
- Spellstrike vs Battlecast
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC