I seem to recall Frazzle and Distract were unique as in INT was used to check for landing the spell, and MND for the potency.
Whereas most other spells use one or the other for both (well some spells don't get potency at all from stats, but I'm sure you get what I mean)
Edit:
Yes, it's not reported on BG wiki but it's on old-wiki.
It sorta makes sense, what doesn't make sense is MND for Potency.
Frazzle and Distract are "Black Magic" type "Enfeebling" spells.
So they gain macc from Enfeebling Skill and from INT, like all Black Magic spells.
"White Magic" debuffs are the opposite, they gain Macc from MND (the difference between your MND and the target's MND blah blah, we all know how it works).
So the strange part here is that Frazzle and Distract gain *potency* from MND, but they do get Macc from INT like all regular Black Magic Spells.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Jack Of All Trades: A Guide To Red Mage
Jack of All Trades: A Guide to Red Mage
I've never seen that, but I guess it's possible since it's Black Magic. I'd really need to see something with data to change from just stacking as much MND as possible for macc though.
Updated my previous post Shadowmeld.
Basically I would never use Acuity+1 for Frazzle3/Distract3, but for Frazzle2/Distract2 where I use a different set focused on Macc (I just want to land it, *** potency since I will overwrite it right after with a tier3 version) Acuity Belt +1 would be a pretty big improvement.
...now if it's worth the inventory+1 for such a niche use I can't say, probably not if you're starving for inventory slots like me, but still it's an interesting option!
Basically I would never use Acuity+1 for Frazzle3/Distract3, but for Frazzle2/Distract2 where I use a different set focused on Macc (I just want to land it, *** potency since I will overwrite it right after with a tier3 version) Acuity Belt +1 would be a pretty big improvement.
...now if it's worth the inventory+1 for such a niche use I can't say, probably not if you're starving for inventory slots like me, but still it's an interesting option!
do you have a link that says that macc for Frazzle stems from INT?
Asura.Sechs said: »
I seem to recall Frazzle and Distract were unique as in INT was used to check for landing the spell, and MND for the potency.
Whereas most other spells use one or the other for both (well some spells don't get potency at all from stats, but I'm sure you get what I mean)
Edit:
Yes, it's not reported on BG wiki but it's on old-wiki.
It sorta makes sense, what doesn't make sense is MND for Potency.
Frazzle and Distract are "Black Magic" type "Enfeebling" spells.
So they gain macc from Enfeebling Skill and from INT, like all Black Magic spells.
"White Magic" debuffs are the opposite, they gain Macc from MND (the difference between your MND and the target's MND blah blah, we all know how it works).
So the strange part here is that Frazzle and Distract gain *potency* from MND, but they do get Macc from INT like all regular Black Magic Spells.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Whereas most other spells use one or the other for both (well some spells don't get potency at all from stats, but I'm sure you get what I mean)
Edit:
Yes, it's not reported on BG wiki but it's on old-wiki.
It sorta makes sense, what doesn't make sense is MND for Potency.
Frazzle and Distract are "Black Magic" type "Enfeebling" spells.
So they gain macc from Enfeebling Skill and from INT, like all Black Magic spells.
"White Magic" debuffs are the opposite, they gain Macc from MND (the difference between your MND and the target's MND blah blah, we all know how it works).
So the strange part here is that Frazzle and Distract gain *potency* from MND, but they do get Macc from INT like all regular Black Magic Spells.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I believe it's right. My frazzle and distract sets I have nothing but enfeebling skill in all slots and Int
Cerberus.Shadowmeld said: »
do you have a link that says that macc for Frazzle stems from INT?
Here.
I remembered discussions on these pages with other RDMs when SE announced that MND affected potency of Frazzle/Distract and everybody was like "wtf?!".
It does make sense, black magic spells rely on INT to calculate the landing rate on a target, whereas white magic spells use MND.
That's not strange at all.
The "strange" part is MND for potency on a Black Magic spell, I suppose.
I'd take it with a slight grain of salt. Frazzle and Distract have been modified, and those pages on that wiki haven't been updated since 2015.
But worth exploring. I don't have the drive or time to test it.
Edit: And the one for Frazzle III has a "Needs Verification" tag on the macc/INT claim.
But worth exploring. I don't have the drive or time to test it.
Edit: And the one for Frazzle III has a "Needs Verification" tag on the macc/INT claim.
Asura.Outlawbruce said: »
I don't get your point other than stating that SE last gave us information in 2015 too.
There isn't really a precedent for a spell that pulls macc from one stat and potency from another stat. There is a ton of precedent to make the claim that potency is driven by MND, it stands to reason that MND also drives macc.
The one place that makes another claim, has no data linked that supports the claim. All I'm saying is I'd be leery about its veracity. BG wiki is usually pretty good about having people test things, you'd think it would at least be on the radar.
[+]
Every test as well as SE personally has stated has shown MND to be the modifier of Distract/Frazzle.
I have no idea who put INT on ffxiclopedia, but they shouldn't be updating pages.
I have no idea who put INT on ffxiclopedia, but they shouldn't be updating pages.
Bahamut.Empyrean said: »
Every test as well as SE personally has stated has shown MND to be the modifier of Distract/Frazzle.
I have no idea who put INT on ffxiclopedia, but they shouldn't be updating pages.
I have no idea who put INT on ffxiclopedia, but they shouldn't be updating pages.
Take 20% off the top there squirrely dan.
Nobody is disputing anything about potency. Unless you can point to the point in that info where se also says “FYI, mnd also affects your accuracy.”
It’s not in there. The question at hand is, is it better to cast frazzle ii in int or mnd to increase land rate? I’m inclined toward mnd unless some testing shows up.
yall need to get back to set crafting, and less circle jerking on whos using the right stats. Stack the *** out of INT and MND. Its not hard. if you cant land frazzle without stacking int, its either stupid resistant to dark, or you need a Frazzle 2 Focused set so you can potency stack frazzle 3.
not complicated lmao
not complicated lmao
[+]
Cerberus.Shadowmeld said: »
Nobody is disputing anything about potency. Unless you can point to the point in that info where se also says “FYI, mnd also affects your accuracy.”
Cerberus.Hideka said: »
yall need to get back to set crafting, and less circle jerking on whos using the right stats.
You realize how circular this statement is right?
I can craft all the sets I want, but what's the point if I'm using the wrong stats?
Bahamut.Empyrean said: »
Cerberus.Shadowmeld said: »
Nobody is disputing anything about potency. Unless you can point to the point in that info where se also says “FYI, mnd also affects your accuracy.”
You're asking the wrong guy man. That's my position.
Edit: For clarity
Quote:
Luminary Sash should still beat Acuity for macc on Frazzle 2 I think. If not, it's a wash. The INT doesn't do anything for any enfeebling except Blind?, maybe Poison?.
Quote:
I'd really need to see something with data to change from just stacking as much MND as possible for macc though.
Quote:
There is a ton of precedent to make the claim that potency is driven by MND, it stands to reason that MND also drives macc.
Quote:
I’m inclined toward mnd unless some testing shows up.
Cerberus.Shadowmeld said: »
Cerberus.Hideka said: »
yall need to get back to set crafting, and less circle jerking on whos using the right stats.
You realize how circular this statement is right?
I can craft all the sets I want, but what's the point if I'm using the wrong stats?
I agree with Shadowmeld here, that was probably one of the dumbest things you could say.
Why would you stack INT on addle when MND is both potency modifier and macc.
Cerberus.Shadowmeld said: »
You're asking the wrong guy man. That's my position.
Everything rdm has had enfeeble wise since level 76+ has been mnd based potency with the exception of break, which really has no real testing behind it. Nobody really uses it, with the exception of breakga for brd to resleep adds before the stupid low duration drops.
Personally, it seems pretty clear that it's a pretty solid division of black magic = int macc and white msgic = mnd macc. All spells tested, whether that be elemental, divine, or dark magic, have followed this pattern
Frazzle and Distract are strange spells, so they have to break one of the patterns we've seen, and I'm a lot more confident in the odds of it being this way than having them be mnd macc based despite being black msgic, simply because potency modifiers are determined individually by spell, but the dStat macc formula seems to be consistent between all spells.
Frazzle and Distract are strange spells, so they have to break one of the patterns we've seen, and I'm a lot more confident in the odds of it being this way than having them be mnd macc based despite being black msgic, simply because potency modifiers are determined individually by spell, but the dStat macc formula seems to be consistent between all spells.
[+]
Cerberus.Shadowmeld said: »
I can craft all the sets I want, but what's the point if I'm using the wrong stats?
Easy. Process of elimination like any rational person would do.
if landing the debuff is your chief concern - Magic accuracy and Enfeebling skill are paramount yes? we already know that the spell potency IS dMND. what you are both arguing is if INT impacts the accuracy of the spell. my point is that it doesnt matter, because 99% of the gear you find with enfeebling skill or magic accuracy already comes with a bucket load of int stacked on it.
There is only one or two slots that the question of INT V Mind even comes to mind on when going for frazzle.
aruging about wether or not a few intelligence will swing a spell landing or not, seems kind of pointless.
[+]
Asura.Geriond said: »
Frazzle and Distract are strange spells
To name another strange thing, they have an innate Macc bonus and they cannot proc immunobreaks.
Cerberus.Hideka said: »
my point is that it doesnt matter
To further dicuss on the topic, it's a common strategy among RDMs that, in some circumstances, you want to stick Frazzle2 on a target with a huge macc set, only to make it easier to stick Frazzle3 right after with a full potency set.
Similar strategy was also used with the previous version of Saboteur to avoid wasting it, but it's no use discussing it now since it doesn't make sense anymore.
So the point is that Acuity Belt +1 could be a pretty big boost to Macc for Frazzle2 set.
I'm not saying it's a vital piece, if you have inventory issues (like me!) I wouldn't suggest to go after it, but if you have less jobs and more space, why not? The macc difference seems big enough to make it worth it, if you ask me. We're not talking about like, what, ~2 macc.
Asura.Sechs said: »
Cerberus.Hideka said: »
my point is that it doesnt matter
To further dicuss on the topic, it's a common strategy among RDMs that, in some circumstances, you want to stick Frazzle2 on a target with a huge macc set, only to make it easier to stick Frazzle3 right after with a full potency set.
Similar strategy was also used with the previous version of Saboteur to avoid wasting it, but it's no use discussing it now since it doesn't make sense anymore.
So the point is that Acuity Belt +1 could be a pretty big boost to Macc for Frazzle2 set.
I'm not saying it's a vital piece, if you have inventory issues (like me!) I wouldn't suggest to go after it, but if you have less jobs and more space, why not? The macc difference seems big enough to make it worth it, if you ask me. We're not talking about like, what, ~2 macc.
Oh i'm aware of how fraz 2 and Fraz 3 are meant to be used; i'm just trying to point out that no matter the slot- you can find more MACC than INT in virtually every single slot, and most of the time, that piece ALSO has int/mind on it, which makes the concept of stacking int specifically, to me, largely pointless.
For like 99% of the gear in the main slots, you're absolutely right Hideka.
There are exceptions though, sometimes you get some nice options for a specific slot, especially the accessory slots.
One example? The two belts we've been discussing.
There are exceptions though, sometimes you get some nice options for a specific slot, especially the accessory slots.
One example? The two belts we've been discussing.
Asura.Sechs said: »
For like 99% of the gear in the main slots, you're absolutely right Hideka.
There are exceptions though, sometimes you get some nice options for a specific slot, especially the accessory slots.
One example? The two belts we've been discussing.
There are exceptions though, sometimes you get some nice options for a specific slot, especially the accessory slots.
One example? The two belts we've been discussing.
do you mean the Belt with 10 magic accuracy vs the belt with 15?
Seems like a no brainer.
Luminary Sash, MND+10/Macc+10
vs
Acuity Belt, INT+23/Macc+15.
If INT was irrelevant (it's not imho, but we already discussed that xD) Luminary would be better, or equal at worst.
(Personally I cast Frazzle3 with Rumination Sash, for instance)
vs
Acuity Belt, INT+23/Macc+15.
If INT was irrelevant (it's not imho, but we already discussed that xD) Luminary would be better, or equal at worst.
(Personally I cast Frazzle3 with Rumination Sash, for instance)
Cerberus.Hideka said: »
Cerberus.Shadowmeld said: »
I can craft all the sets I want, but what's the point if I'm using the wrong stats?
Easy. Process of elimination like any rational person would do.
if landing the debuff is your chief concern - Magic accuracy and Enfeebling skill are paramount yes? we already know that the spell potency IS dMND. what you are both arguing is if INT impacts the accuracy of the spell. my point is that it doesnt matter, because 99% of the gear you find with enfeebling skill or magic accuracy already comes with a bucket load of int stacked on it.
There is only one or two slots that the question of INT V Mind even comes to mind on when going for frazzle.
aruging about wether or not a few intelligence will swing a spell landing or not, seems kind of pointless.
I would take hideka opinions with a grain of salt...
All he does is say this and that and then get corrected
How are those omen boss solos working out my dude?
All he does is say this and that and then get corrected
How are those omen boss solos working out my dude?
pretty good so far actually. Got Kei to 30% and timed out. just need to clean it up and finish up some stuff im missing.
Phoenix.Thorbean said: »
1) MND, MDam/MAcc, WSD, MND, Resin flexible (Sanguine Blade, Aeolian Edge, Seraph Blade, Black Halo, Savage blade at a push and Enfeebles.)
2) DEX, DW, Acc/Att, PDT, DEX (TP, DT, and CDC sets until you can build pure CDC cape)
3) STR, Acc/Att, WSD, STR, Resin flexible (Savage Blade, Empyreal Arrow)
2) DEX, DW, Acc/Att, PDT, DEX (TP, DT, and CDC sets until you can build pure CDC cape)
3) STR, Acc/Att, WSD, STR, Resin flexible (Savage Blade, Empyreal Arrow)
Wanted to follow up a bit more here on capes as I won't be able to buy 4th cape till next month
For TP capes should DW really be in there? My understanding is that to cap delay, from /nin all we need is 11 from gear 36 - 25 (DWIII) (0.36 = 1 - (0.2 / (1 - 0.6875))
Just Suppa and the earing from Domain is 9.
So STP or DA capes probably better since you can use when using a shield.
Does this make sense? Obviously if you have 2 capes for TP one should be dual wield. but the first one should be what? stp? DA?
I have a cape with +7 dw and then use eabani. It lets me push to dw3 levels when /dnc and caps on /nin. I have a separate stp cape for single-wield situations. This works for me since I don't have a ton of jobs geared to this level, but I could understand wanting to streamline sets a bit to save on space.
Carbuncle.Tyleron said: »
Phoenix.Thorbean said: »
1) MND, MDam/MAcc, WSD, MND, Resin flexible (Sanguine Blade, Aeolian Edge, Seraph Blade, Black Halo, Savage blade at a push and Enfeebles.)
2) DEX, DW, Acc/Att, PDT, DEX (TP, DT, and CDC sets until you can build pure CDC cape)
3) STR, Acc/Att, WSD, STR, Resin flexible (Savage Blade, Empyreal Arrow)
2) DEX, DW, Acc/Att, PDT, DEX (TP, DT, and CDC sets until you can build pure CDC cape)
3) STR, Acc/Att, WSD, STR, Resin flexible (Savage Blade, Empyreal Arrow)
Wanted to follow up a bit more here on capes as I won't be able to buy 4th cape till next month
For TP capes should DW really be in there? My understanding is that to cap delay, from /nin all we need is 11 from gear 36 - 25 (DWIII) (0.36 = 1 - (0.2 / (1 - 0.6875))
Just Suppa and the earing from Domain is 9.
So STP or DA capes probably better since you can use when using a shield.
Does this make sense? Obviously if you have 2 capes for TP one should be dual wield. but the first one should be what? stp? DA?
I do 7 DW as said above + 4 from ear to cap with /NIN freeing up ear slot.
It's nice for soloing with 1 dmg daggers and enspells, as using trusts they tend to pull hate all the time and feed tp so you won't have marches. You can make use of Suppa + Carmine legs +1 with DW aug in that case for better DPS.
Second, with capped magic haste you have a free ear slot for Sherida Earring for a total 5%DA, 5%STP, 5%SB2 and 5STR/DEX +2DW vs another Aug.
If you find yourself single wielding more often than DW for melee, then STP I'd guess will be slightly better for TP gain but DA will give you a bit more damage from enspells. Probably very little difference between the 2.
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.