n-Depth look at Hungering Arrow - Demon Hunter: The Dreadlands - Diablo III Class Forums - Forums - Diablo Fans

This site works best with JavaScript enabled. Please enable JavaScript to get the best experience from this site.

All users will need to merge their Diablofans account with a new or existing Twitch account starting Nov 20th. You can merge your accounts by clicking here. Have questions? Learn more here.

Yeah, I haven't been able to get it to happen again either. I thought I saw it happen once, but I've been unable to do it again, so I may have been seeing something else.

if it splits, all arrows can seek, however only 1 will re-seek the original target. in other words, i don't think more than 1 of the split arrows can hit the split-originating target again. i have not tried it in a large group so i am not sure if the split arrows can be split. going to try and test that now.

edit: more testing. it seems like there is a "no track" distance that the 3 arrows will travel before they seek. if one arrow hits during this period, another may track back to that same target. I have not yet seen 2 arrows track to the same target. i have not yet seen a second split.

I used this briefly and from what I could tell, only 1 arrow would come back and hit the original target again, The other 2 arrows Shot off screen and it was hard to decipher what happened to them. Also I am uncertain if the arrow capable of tracking is also capable of multiple pierces. It happens so fast you might need to FRAPS it to get definite confirmation of the mechanics.

Though my guess is that the one arrow acts just like hungering arrow and the other 2 arrows just go off straight trajectory w/o pierce. The would in turn probably make this rune a poor choice.

EDIT: Of course it won't split more than once, that is clearly written in the description.

Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack

Do you want to get scammed? Perhaps a nice keylogger?
"Just google "diablo 3 gold guide" and magical rainbow covered demons will assault your eyes."

I used this briefly and from what I could tell, only 1 arrow would come back and hit the original target again, The other 2 arrows Shot off screen and it was hard to decipher what happened to them. Also I am uncertain if the arrow capable of tracking is also capable of multiple pierces. It happens so fast you might need to FRAPS it to get definite confirmation of the mechanics.

Though my guess is that the one arrow acts just like hungering arrow and the other 2 arrows just go off straight trajectory w/o pierce. The would in turn probably make this rune a poor choice.

EDIT: Of course it won't split more than once, that is clearly written in the description.

I'm just going to echo this. I have yet to notice one of the split arrows piercing, but again it all occurs very fast...it's definitely possible I've just missed it. It certainly does not seem to be a particularly good rune choice.

So just did a bit of testing with shatter shot and devouring arrow:

First of all: The formula in the original post for devouring arrow is slightly wrong, as in it is 115+sum_(n=1)^infinity (115*(0.35^n)*(1.7^n)), as the increased damage applies after the first pierce. So explicitly the first terms would be: 115+115*0.35*1.7+115*0.35^2*1.7^2+... This is changing the damage of devouring to 283.95%. But keep in mind the points brought up on the pages before (e.g. overkill damage). Against bosses though, Devouring Arrow is by far outperforming Puncturing Arrow.

So as of shatter shot: I tested a few hundred shots of shatter shot and NEVER saw one shattered arrow pierce again. There were always only 4 hits (initial + the 3 splits). All of the arrows are seeking, but only one will hit the original target again in most cases (i think i saw it happen once that a second arrow flew back, but nothing that is in any way significant to the average damage). So the minimal damage stated in the original post is the correct one according to my testing.

So just to clarify, you found Devouring to actually raise each subsequent hit by a factor of 1.7, as opposed to it simply adding 70%*115% weapon damage each pierce (the former gives us that ~284% figure, the latter would give us ~244%)? You aren't just assuming this, but actually tested it, correct?

didn't think of that possibility. will test it now.

Edit: Okay bought a low damage range crossbow and did some shooting. calculated that with a 3 times pierce it should do minimum of about 5k damage with one formula, with the other about 4k (was a cheap crossbow ). Saw the triple pierce only twice but both times only in the 4k range So the damage for devouring is

So after trying to figure out which of these is better(Puncturing VS Devouring) and failing many times due to simple mistakes, I decided to make sure all my data was correct(weapon damage modifier, chance to pierce, etc) and sit down and do the math as simply as possible. Hopefully, I made no mistakes this time!

So let's assume we test these 2 shots by firing 100 shots total. For the sake of the test, each shot gets the right amount of pierces.

Puncturing Arrow
100 shots hit for 115%=11500%
50 come back and hit again for 115%=5750%
25=2875%
12=1438%
6=719%
3=359%
1=180% Total weapon damage done=22821% weapon damage

Devouring Arrow(Multiplicative)
100 for 115%=11500%
35 for 195.5%=6843%
12 for 332.4%=3988%
4 for 564.9%=2260%
1 for 960.5%=960.5% Total weapon damage done=25551% weapon damage

Devouring Arrow(Additive)
100 for 115%=11500%
35 for 185%=6475%
12 for 255%=3060%
4 for 325%=1300%
1 for 395%=395% Total weapon damage done=22730% weapon damage

So if this is all correct(which I hope it is), then Devouring(mult) is the most powerful by quite a bit. However, if the 70% is additive, then it and Puncturing are almost the same with damage done.

Dividing up a hundred shots and rounding it is a bit less accurate than using summation, but it gives a decent picture to the less mathy folks. I believe it's still a question as to whether each pierce of Devouring Arrow adds 70% of weapon damage, or 70% of the initial hit (which would be 70% * 115% = 80.5%)

Devouring Arrow may do a little bit more damage on average, if the above is accurate, but its so close that I am going to continue using Puncturing Arrow (which yields an average of 2 hits vs 1.53, and thus works better with On Hit and On Crit effects)

Dividing up a hundred shots and rounding it is a bit less accurate than using summation, but it gives a decent picture to the less mathy folks. I believe it's still a question as to whether each pierce of Devouring Arrow adds 70% of weapon damage, or 70% of the initial hit (which would be 70% * 115% = 80.5%)

Devouring Arrow may do a little bit more damage on average, if the above is accurate, but its so close that I am going to continue using Puncturing Arrow (which yields an average of 2 hits vs 1.53, and thus works better with On Hit and On Crit effects)

We know its for sure not 70% OF the initial hit. First off, you can see the damage going up in game, rather than down. And secondly, the tooltip says it increases the damage of the arrow BY 70% for each pierce. So the question is whether its multiplicative or additive. If multipilicative, than Devouring Arrow does a TON more damage, but if additive, it does a tiny bit less than Puncturing. And yeah, I figured my math wasn't super accurate like a summation would be, but I thought it would paint a general picture of how much damage each rune does over a period of time that everyone can understand.

Pure speculation but I imagine the ~244% is closer to reality. This makes it slightly better than Puncturing for bosses, but due to some of the aforementioned drawbacks less and less good the weaker and weaker your enemies are. I think I personally still prefer Puncturing, and assuming the ~244% is correct, it seems there wont really be a right or wrong choice, just preference.

Dividing up a hundred shots and rounding it is a bit less accurate than using summation, but it gives a decent picture to the less mathy folks. I believe it's still a question as to whether each pierce of Devouring Arrow adds 70% of weapon damage, or 70% of the initial hit (which would be 70% * 115% = 80.5%)

Devouring Arrow may do a little bit more damage on average, if the above is accurate, but its so close that I am going to continue using Puncturing Arrow (which yields an average of 2 hits vs 1.53, and thus works better with On Hit and On Crit effects)

We know its for sure not 70% OF the initial hit. First off, you can see the damage going up in game, rather than down. And secondly, the tooltip says it increases the damage of the arrow BY 70% for each pierce. So the question is whether its multiplicative or additive. If multipilicative, than Devouring Arrow does a TON more damage, but if additive, it does a tiny bit less than Puncturing. And yeah, I figured my math wasn't super accurate like a summation would be, but I thought it would paint a general picture of how much damage each rune does over a period of time that everyone can understand.

You misunderstand, I meant that it may add 70% to the damage of the first hit, as opposed to simply adding 70% weapon damage. Note that this is different, because the first hit does a bit more than weapon damage.

Obviously they wouldn't give us a rune that makes the ability strictly worse

The math is right on the front page, with the exception of shatter which fell into a near worst case scenario.

One arrow maintains the hungering arrow function, and the other 2 just kind of fly off and might hit something.

Shatter is a worst case scenario. Only one arrow will hit the original target and WILL NOT PIERCE AGAIN, the others are target seeking but hit only different targets than the first one and will also not pierce.

Devouring is wrong on the first page and i am 99% sure it is 115+sum_(n=1)^(infinity)((115+115*0.7*n)*0.35^n) = 243.61 OR 115+sum_(n=1)^(infinity)((115+100*0.7*n)*0.35^n) = 234.91 But the difference betwenn those two is quite small so really hard to test (in one case it adds 70% of 115% weapondamage per pierce in the other case 70% weapon damage per pierce).

So it seems to me that puncturing is the best rune as it is the most balanced and does only a bit less damage than the other ones, which can do significantly less in specific szenarios (shatter: no more targets near, devouring: overkill damage)

Spray of Teeth is hard to quantify due to being based on crit chance and number of mobs near, so it may be the best for certain aoe szenarios.

Didn't test cinder yet, but i assume the maximum stated on the first page is right as it is the same damage as the other runes give.

"Each consecutive pierce increases dmg by 70%."
You have each each consecutive pierce spawns another arrow that hits for 70% dmg.

The question is whether devouring arrow increases every subsequent pierces damage by 70%, or whether it simply adds 70% of the initial 115% for each additional pierce. I'm not a mathematician or even a math major, but by my calculations that either equals ~284% or ~244%, not the 215% listed in the OP.

Devouring Arrow has 3 possibilities how it could work:

1. Multiplicative increase (NOT THE CASE, tested that): First hit: 115%, Second hit: (115*1.7)% Third hit: ((115*1.7)*1.7)% etc.
Would yield an average damage of 284%. (of course every hit is meant of the same arrow)

2. Additive increase, increases damage by 70% of the original damage of the shot. So: First hit: 115%, Second hit: (115+115*0.7)% Third hit: (115+115*0.7+115*0.7)% Fourth hit: (115+115*0.7+115*0.7+115*0.7)% etc.
Would yield an average damage of 243.61%

3. Additive increase, increases damage by 70% weapondamage per pierce: So: First hit: 115%, Second hit: (115+70)% Third hit: (115+70+70)% Fourth hit: (115+70+70+70)% etc.
Would yield an average damage of 234.91%

The first is most definitly not the case, according to my tests (mentioned above). The other two are really hard to determine which it is... would have to do a lot of statistics or have a weapon with 0 damage range to test that.

Oh and in the OP he assumed that only after the second pierce the multiplicative stacking would begin as it was worded "consecutive" so he thought every pierce *after* the first increases the damage (which is not the case, according to tests)

^^ Pretty sure Robi has the 3 scenarios for devouring correct. One of these summations has to be correct, just need someone to test/confirm which scenario should be used.

In reference to the highest damage option for runes, there are essentially 2 scenarios: 1) Single target DPS, 2) Multiple target DPS.

In case 1), rankings are:
SoT (average crit % > ~75%) at >235
Devouring (worst case additive situation) at ~235
SoT (70% > average crit % > 75%) ~231-235
Cinder at ~231
Puncturing at ~230
SoT (0% > average crit % > 69%) at ~177-230
No Rune at ~177
Shatter at ~155 DPS (This assumes what others have tested is right and that 1 of the 3 shatters comes back to original target, and does not pierce a second time)

*Note - With crit % passive, average crit % is extremely hard to model, so devouring may be more reliable than SoT. It's all just a roll of the dice.

In case 2),
Shatter has a maximum of ~300 (according to the front page, but I don't agree with the way the arrow behaves, and imo, the actual max will probably be lower).
SoT is the only other viable option and theoretically has no limit assuming there are infinite mobs around the mob that was crit.
For this case, imo, the clear best option is to use some other AoE. However, if you just have your heart set on using HA for AoE, then have fun doing subpar dps.

As I've been having a long painful period of time trying to figure out which hungering arrow is better and I am skilled in mathematics and computer coding, I eventually got tired of the whole matter instead of looking information I compiled it all for computer to calculate. I also realised that my intuition than told me around 30% critical hit chance switch over Spray of Teeth might've been slightly wrong...

I'll simply post the source code here (c++) compile it to see what arrow type is the best for your gear. As it runs through the sum formula rather than the pen-paper solutions that there has been 3 pages of speculation, it's fairly efficient and there is no error created by pen paper napkin mathematics.

The following values are constants:

Hungering arrow (no rune) 176.92
Cindering arrow (as the dot stacks): 230.77 (note 70% ch spray of teeth is on par)
Puncturing arrow: 230
Devouring arrow (five pierce cap): 275.97
Scatter Arrow 1 target 176.92
Scatter Arrow 2 targets 362.69
Scatter Arrow 3+ targets 486.54
Spray of teeth 176.9 0% ch
Spray of teeth 184.6 10% ch
Spray of teeth 196.2 25% ch
Spray of teeth 215.4 50% ch
Spray of teeth 234.6 75% ch
Spray of teeth 253.8 100% ch
And forexample with 40% ch and 3 enemies in same cluster: 269.2
The followed values above are all average wep % dmg on use.

#Things to note: part of cindering arrow's dmg is lost if mob dies to any other source but the DoT final tick, such it'd not be recomended other than either long fights or boss fights.
#Devouring arrow pierce stacks after 5 succesful pierce, and each additional pierce will behave like 5 pierces had been occured. This holds true even in the event that something got messed up in RNG and it'd pierce same target 1000000 times.
#I've updated scatter arrow, as it's puncture mechanics are following: main arrow can scatter and from the 3 arrows generated from scatter, only the 'main arrow' out of those three can scatter again recreating another 3 arrows. The extra 2 arrows cant hit same main target. With only 3 targets there is possibility that 1 arrow is wasted.
#I've modified the source code slightly as with devouring arrow, I accidentally inserted the formula's first pierce behave, as if no bonus damage is multiplied. Distorting the final result. (sorry) Also I increased the ammount of numbers in the output before rounding them up, so it's currently 5 first numbers that are being showed. <Iomanip> and setprecision(n) define this. Changing n, will change the ammount of numbers shown in output. For accurate results for D3 side, only 2 decimals are needed.

#Thirdly I release all rights to alter and modify the source code and claim no ownership to it as long as it's general contents don't change. IF you use it on something else than Diablo 3 theorycraft, then it's stealing! Also claiming your own ownership as this one is freely distributed is also stealing as the code is made for public distribution. Feel free to go over the maths on your own computer and use it only for DH theorycraft, not as core structure for some other program of yours. This stated, you are completely legal to make changes to it as long as it's purpose doesn't change. :3

Source code here:

#include <math.h>
#include <iostream>
#include <iomanip>
using namespace std;
int main(int argc, const char* argv[]){
double crit;
double enemy;
cout << "Give critical hit on 2 decimal accuracy" << endl;
cin >>crit;
cout << "How many enemies are on a cluster?" <<endl;
cin >>enemy;
if(enemy < 1){ enemy = 1;}
double y;
double x = 0;
while(x != 500){
y =y+(115*pow(0.35,x));
x++;
}
cout <<"Hungering arrow, No rune " << setprecision (5) <<y <<endl;
y = 0;
x = 0;
while(x != 500){
y =y+((115+35)*pow(0.35,x));
x++;
}
cout <<"Hungering arrow, Cindering arrow " << setprecision (5) <<y <<endl;
y = 0;
x = 0;
while(x != 500){ // Spray of teeth
y =y+((115+((crit*0.5)*enemy))*pow(0.35,x));
x++;
}
cout << "Hungering arrow, Spray of teeth: " << setprecision (5) <<y <<endl;
y = 0;
x = 0;
while(x != 500){
y = y+((115)*pow(0.5,x));
x++;
}
cout << "Hungering arrow, Puncturing arrow: " <<setprecision (5) <<y <<endl;
y = 0;
x = 0;
while(x !=500){ // Devouring arrow.
if(x<6){
y = y+((115)*pow(0.35,x))*pow(1.7,x);
x++;
}
else{ // Devouring arrow caps after 5 succesful pierces.
y=y+((115)*pow(0.35,x))*pow(1.7,5);
x++;
}
}
cout << "Hungering arrow, Devouring arrow: " <<setprecision (5) << y<< endl;
x = 1;
y = 115;
while(x != 500){
if(enemy==1){
y = y+((115)*pow(0.35,x)); // 1 of the arrow can pierce again.
x++;
}
if(enemy==2){
y = y+((230)*(pow(0.35,x)*2)); // 1 of the arrow can pierce again.
x++;
}
if(enemy>2){
y = y+((345)*(pow(0.35,x)*2)); // 1 of the arrow can pierce again.
x++;
}
}
cout <<"Hungering arrow, Scattering arrow: " <<setprecision (5) << y<<endl;
return 0;
}

Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack

To post a comment, please login or register a new account.

if it splits, all arrows can seek, however only 1 will re-seek the original target. in other words, i don't think more than 1 of the split arrows can hit the split-originating target again. i have not tried it in a large group so i am not sure if the split arrows can be split. going to try and test that now.

edit: more testing. it seems like there is a "no track" distance that the 3 arrows will travel before they seek. if one arrow hits during this period, another may track back to that same target. I have not yet seen 2 arrows track to the same target. i have not yet seen a second split.

Though my guess is that the one arrow acts just like hungering arrow and the other 2 arrows just go off straight trajectory w/o pierce. The would in turn probably make this rune a poor choice.

EDIT: Of course it won't split more than once, that is clearly written in the description.

"Just google "diablo 3 gold guide" and magical rainbow covered demons will assault your eyes."

I'm just going to echo this. I have yet to notice one of the split arrows piercing, but again it all occurs very fast...it's definitely possible I've just missed it. It certainly does not seem to be a particularly good rune choice.

~~First of all: The formula in the original post for devouring arrow is slightly wrong, as in it is 115+sum_(n=1)^infinity (115*(0.35^n)*(1.7^n)), as the increased damage applies after the first pierce. So explicitly the first terms would be: 115+115*0.35*1.7+115*0.35^2*1.7^2+... This is changing the damage of devouring to 283.95%. But keep in mind the points brought up on the pages before (e.g. overkill damage). Against bosses though, Devouring Arrow is by far outperforming Puncturing Arrow.~~So as of shatter shot: I tested a few hundred shots of shatter shot and NEVER saw one shattered arrow pierce again. There were always only 4 hits (initial + the 3 splits). All of the arrows are seeking, but only one will hit the original target again in most cases (i think i saw it happen once that a second arrow flew back, but nothing that is in any way significant to the average damage). So the minimal damage stated in the original post is the correct one according to my testing.

Edit: See next post regarding devouring arrow..

Edit: Okay bought a low damage range crossbow and did some shooting. calculated that with a 3 times pierce it should do minimum of about 5k damage with one formula, with the other about 4k (was a cheap crossbow ). Saw the triple pierce only twice but both times only in the 4k range So the damage for devouring is

115 + sum_(n=1)^infinity ((115+115*0.7*n)*0.35^n) = 243.61

which still makes it a bit better than puncturing, but now the drawbacks probably make puncturing preverable..

So let's assume we test these 2 shots by firing 100 shots total. For the sake of the test, each shot gets the right amount of pierces.

Puncturing Arrow100 shots hit for 115%=11500%

50 come back and hit again for 115%=5750%

25=2875%

12=1438%

6=719%

3=359%

1=180%

Total weapon damage done=22821% weapon damageDevouring Arrow(Multiplicative)100 for 115%=11500%

35 for 195.5%=6843%

12 for 332.4%=3988%

4 for 564.9%=2260%

1 for 960.5%=960.5%

Total weapon damage done=25551% weapon damageDevouring Arrow(Additive)100 for 115%=11500%

35 for 185%=6475%

12 for 255%=3060%

4 for 325%=1300%

1 for 395%=395%

Total weapon damage done=22730% weapon damageSo if this is all correct(which I hope it is), then Devouring(mult) is the most powerful by quite a bit. However, if the 70% is additive, then it and Puncturing are almost the same with damage done.

Devouring Arrow may do a little bit more damage on average, if the above is accurate, but its so close that I am going to continue using Puncturing Arrow (which yields an average of 2 hits vs 1.53, and thus works better with On Hit and On Crit effects)

We know its for sure not 70% OF the initial hit. First off, you can see the damage going up in game, rather than down. And secondly, the tooltip says it increases the damage of the arrow BY 70% for each pierce. So the question is whether its multiplicative or additive. If multipilicative, than Devouring Arrow does a TON more damage, but if additive, it does a tiny bit less than Puncturing. And yeah, I figured my math wasn't super accurate like a summation would be, but I thought it would paint a general picture of how much damage each rune does over a period of time that everyone can understand.

You misunderstand, I meant that it may add 70% to the damage of the first hit, as opposed to simply adding 70% weapon damage. Note that this is different, because the first hit does a bit more than weapon damage.

Obviously they wouldn't give us a rune that makes the ability strictly worse

One arrow maintains the hungering arrow function, and the other 2 just kind of fly off and might hit something.

"Just google "diablo 3 gold guide" and magical rainbow covered demons will assault your eyes."

Shatter is a worst case scenario. Only one arrow will hit the original target and WILL NOT PIERCE AGAIN, the others are target seeking but hit only different targets than the first one and will also not pierce.

Devouring is wrong on the first page and i am 99% sure it is 115+sum_(n=1)^(infinity)((115+115*0.7*n)*0.35^n) = 243.61 OR 115+sum_(n=1)^(infinity)((115+100*0.7*n)*0.35^n) = 234.91 But the difference betwenn those two is quite small so really hard to test (in one case it adds 70% of 115% weapondamage per pierce in the other case 70% weapon damage per pierce).

So it seems to me that puncturing is the best rune as it is the most balanced and does only a bit less damage than the other ones, which can do significantly less in specific szenarios (shatter: no more targets near, devouring: overkill damage)

Spray of Teeth is hard to quantify due to being based on crit chance and number of mobs near, so it may be the best for certain aoe szenarios.

Didn't test cinder yet, but i assume the maximum stated on the first page is right as it is the same damage as the other runes give.

You have each each consecutive pierce spawns another arrow that hits for 70% dmg.

"Just google "diablo 3 gold guide" and magical rainbow covered demons will assault your eyes."

The question is whether devouring arrow increases every subsequent pierces damage by 70%, or whether it simply adds 70% of the initial 115% for each additional pierce. I'm not a mathematician or even a math major, but by my calculations that either equals ~284% or ~244%, not the 215% listed in the OP.

1. Multiplicative increase (NOT THE CASE, tested that): First hit: 115%, Second hit: (115*1.7)% Third hit: ((115*1.7)*1.7)% etc.

Would yield an average damage of 284%. (of course every hit is meant of the same arrow)

2. Additive increase, increases damage by 70% of the original damage of the shot. So: First hit: 115%, Second hit: (115+115*0.7)% Third hit: (115+115*0.7+115*0.7)% Fourth hit: (115+115*0.7+115*0.7+115*0.7)% etc.

Would yield an average damage of 243.61%

3. Additive increase, increases damage by 70% weapondamage per pierce: So: First hit: 115%, Second hit: (115+70)% Third hit: (115+70+70)% Fourth hit: (115+70+70+70)% etc.

Would yield an average damage of 234.91%

The first is most definitly not the case, according to my tests (mentioned above). The other two are really hard to determine which it is... would have to do a lot of statistics or have a weapon with 0 damage range to test that.

Oh and in the OP he assumed that only after the second pierce the multiplicative stacking would begin as it was worded "consecutive" so he thought every pierce *after* the first increases the damage (which is not the case, according to tests)

In reference to the highest damage option for runes, there are essentially 2 scenarios: 1) Single target DPS, 2) Multiple target DPS.

In case 1), rankings are:SoT (average crit % > ~75%) at

>235Devouring (worst case additive situation) at

~235SoT (70% > average crit % > 75%)

~231-235Cinder at

~231Puncturing at

~230SoT (0% > average crit % > 69%) at

~177-230No Rune at

~177Shatter at

~155 DPS(This assumes what others have tested is right and that 1 of the 3 shatters comes back to original target, and does not pierce a second time)*Note - With crit % passive, average crit % is extremely hard to model, so devouring may be more reliable than SoT. It's all just a roll of the dice.

In case 2),Shatter has a maximum of

~300(according to the front page, but I don't agree with the way the arrow behaves, and imo, the actual max will probably be lower).SoT is the only other viable option and theoretically

has no limitassuming there are infinite mobs around the mob that was crit.For this case, imo, the clear best option is to use some other AoE. However, if you just have your heart set on using HA for AoE, then have fun doing subpar dps.

I'll simply post the source code here (c++) compile it to see what arrow type is the best for your gear. As it runs through the sum formula rather than the pen-paper solutions that there has been 3 pages of speculation, it's fairly efficient and there is no error created by pen paper napkin mathematics.

The following values are constants:

Hungering arrow (no rune) 176.92

Cindering arrow (as the dot stacks): 230.77 (note 70% ch spray of teeth is on par)

Puncturing arrow: 230

Devouring arrow (five pierce cap): 275.97

Scatter Arrow 1 target 176.92

Scatter Arrow 2 targets 362.69

Scatter Arrow 3+ targets 486.54

Spray of teeth 176.9 0% ch

Spray of teeth 184.6 10% ch

Spray of teeth 196.2 25% ch

Spray of teeth 215.4 50% ch

Spray of teeth 234.6 75% ch

Spray of teeth 253.8 100% ch

And forexample with 40% ch and 3 enemies in same cluster: 269.2

The followed values above are all average wep % dmg on use.

#Things to note: part of cindering arrow's dmg is lost if mob dies to any other source but the DoT final tick, such it'd not be recomended other than either long fights or boss fights.

#Devouring arrow pierce stacks after 5 succesful pierce, and each additional pierce will behave like 5 pierces had been occured. This holds true even in the event that something got messed up in RNG and it'd pierce same target 1000000 times.

#I've updated scatter arrow, as it's puncture mechanics are following: main arrow can scatter and from the 3 arrows generated from scatter, only the 'main arrow' out of those three can scatter again recreating another 3 arrows. The extra 2 arrows cant hit same main target. With only 3 targets there is possibility that 1 arrow is wasted.

#I've modified the source code slightly as with devouring arrow, I accidentally inserted the formula's first pierce behave, as if no bonus damage is multiplied. Distorting the final result. (sorry) Also I increased the ammount of numbers in the output before rounding them up, so it's currently 5 first numbers that are being showed. <Iomanip> and setprecision(n) define this. Changing n, will change the ammount of numbers shown in output. For accurate results for D3 side, only 2 decimals are needed.

#Thirdly I release all rights to alter and modify the source code and claim no ownership to it as long as it's general contents don't change. IF you use it on something else than Diablo 3 theorycraft, then it's stealing! Also claiming your own ownership as this one is freely distributed is also stealing as the code is made for public distribution. Feel free to go over the maths on your own computer and use it only for DH theorycraft, not as core structure for some other program of yours. This stated, you are completely legal to make changes to it as long as it's purpose doesn't change. :3Source code here: