Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[3.3.5] Item - Robes of Insight #14734

Closed
Kensaki opened this issue May 21, 2015 · 5 comments
Closed

[3.3.5] Item - Robes of Insight #14734

Kensaki opened this issue May 21, 2015 · 5 comments

Comments

@Kensaki
Copy link

Kensaki commented May 21, 2015

The item Robes of Insight
http://www.wowhead.com/item=940/robes-of-insight

It's supposed to reduce mana cost for the next spell only, seems to reduce mana cost by 500 for all spells cast within 10 seconds.

DB 335.58
rev 8572eea 2015-05-17

@Killyana
Copy link
Member

Because the 18820 is not removed when the first spell is casted.

@Rushor
Copy link
Contributor

Rushor commented May 21, 2015

sth like:

class spell_item_insight : public SpellScriptLoader
{
    public:
        spell_item_insight() : SpellScriptLoader("spell_item_insight") { }

        class spell_item_insight_AuraScript : public AuraScript
        {
            PrepareAuraScript(spell_item_insight_AuraScript);

            void HandleProc(ProcEventInfo& /*eventInfo*/)
            {
                GetTarget()->RemoveAura(GetSpellInfo()->Id);
            }

            void Register()
            {
                OnProc += AuraProcFn(spell_item_insight_AuraScript::HandleProc);
            }
        };

        AuraScript* GetAuraScript() const
        {
            return new spell_item_insight_AuraScript();
        }
};

@joschiwald
Copy link
Contributor

i think it is better to change proccharges in spellinfo like it is done for similar spells
https://github.com/TrinityCore/TrinityCore/blob/3.3.5/src/server/game/Spells/SpellMgr.cpp#L3124

@Rushor
Copy link
Contributor

Rushor commented May 21, 2015

we are closing tickets now? i mean if the 'fix' from the pr would not be correct and devs would close the pr, the original issue would be lost :/

@Exodius
Copy link
Contributor

Exodius commented May 21, 2015

Oh, I didn't see that this was PR. Sorry :)
Didn't had any bad intentions.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants