Questioning Spellthief, Frostfang

Sinneli·8/12/2015, 6:20:12 AM·4 votes·1,171 views

So. There has been this question in my mind lately. From my experience on this item, this thing helps rake up tons of gold for the support doing nothing more than simply poking the enemy with either autos or spells. On champions with DoT, 'support' Brand can rake up money by simply hitting one spell and watching the enemy burn a little while gaining 15~30 gold whenever the charges are full. But this leads me to question some other supports, and other champions who are not able to do this.

Lulu, for instance, has Pix with her passive, firing small bolts that can be blocked by enemy units. Why does this not trigger the item?

Also, apparently, Teemo's E don't proc Spellthief as well.

I found that a little weird. Is there a reason for those?

11 Comments

AmazingBeaver8/12/2015, 6:27:42 AM1 votes

Not always you can get the most of item 3303 since there are lanes that u just cant poke , unless you want to lose big chunks of HP , sometimes item 3301 is better choice .

Psychoneirik8/12/2015, 6:30:55 AM1 votes

I think it is because they don't really count as spells. They also don't proc liandry's or rylai's.

Häßlich8/12/2015, 6:45:53 AM1 votes

It's more of a give and take. Look at Sona or Annie for example,

You can use item 3098 to get paid for harassing and build into a mediocre clicky item ( item 3092 ) , but when teamfights roll around you're going to struggle to make strong plays if you don't have summoner 4 available. However, it does have some desirable damage stats if you are building that way with your support. On the other hand, item 3096 is a more passive gold gain with more sustain in mind, but builds into ( item 3069 ) an item that lets you make plays on a relatively short cooldown. You can quickly close for an ult stun, help your team chase, or disengage. FQC seems a lot more limited by comparison.

3TWarrior8/12/2015, 7:10:48 AM1 votes

I think it has to do with that they're not an "active" spell

brand's passive is triggered by a spell hit(or perhaps might be coded to add onto as an additional part of the spell, making it hit as a spell each time the damage ticks)

teemo and lulu are constant auto attack effects

overall, it's probably just bad coding as the text states that "auto attacks and spells against an enemy champion do 10 extra magic damage and grant 5 gold, happening a maximum time of 3 times per 30 seconds"

so, teemo's damage is probably coded as a debuff and lulu's is probably coded as an "addition" to her auto attack damage

as an example of spell damage: malzahar and urgot's E's both do damage over time, essentially dealing "spell damage" but teemo's passive is a debuff (or as with lulu, a set amount of damage added onto his auto attack per second)

ex: attack damage + (the entirety of the damage passive divided by time)

it doesn't make sense though because I believe his ults trigger them as a "spell damage"

Nekusen8/13/2015, 10:04:51 PM1 votes

its odd how some dots proc item 3303 and others don't. i tried support Swain to test this, and as it proced it, it worked surprisingly well.