Skill vs. the stat that helps the spell.

[Koyangi]

Got into what seemed like a VERY pointless debate in my LS about skill vs. the actual stat that helps the spell when it lands.

What I said(this is from lurking here and talking to RDM who knew this):
Enfeebling Skill is simply hit or miss, stats like MND and INT(depends on spell) effect its duration and/or proc rates and %.
Details of what I've gathered by lurking forums, MND effects slow's % of slow, it has a cap (idk the cap), MND for para determines the number of instances it can proc before wearing off.
I was being argued against saying MND and INT help its accuracy too.
Does anyone have anything to say about this, I'm being labeled as wrong and "you don't have rdm at 75 so you can't talk."
Perhaps some good old "evidence" and tests from RDM or otherwise can be posted here as a reference to those who say my words mean nothing since my rdm isn't 75.

[Alastaire]

You're correct, your LS mates don't know what they're talking about.

[Jeryhn]

INT and MND do effect magic accuracy, but about to the extent that DEX effects melee accuracy.

[Kaylia]

Skill always helps accuracy. Also help potency on buff, and certain debuff (like bio2 or 3 I think).
Int/mnd always help accuracy and usually potency (when its not a fixed amount)

I'm still not sure what help buff to stick for the full time. Is it potency or accuracy



I can't tell for sure, but I would say 2int=1acc, and 1 skill=1acc, same way acc works for dex and skill.

[Alastaire]

Skill always helps accuracy. Also help potency on buff, and certain debuff (like bio2 or 3 I think).
Int/mnd always help accuracy and usually potency (when its not a fixed amount)

I'm still not sure what help buff to stick for the full time. Is it potency or



I can't tell for sure, but I would say 2int=1acc, and 1 skill=1acc, same way acc works for dex and skill.

I always thought that wasn't the case...hm.

[Koyangi]

Yeah, the intention of my response was, in the long term, would you stack INT/MND or skill to ensure your spell sticks, also I was under the impression your INT/MND is compared agaisnt enemy's before a certain # can help you see results or if you know when diminishing returns begins. Hope this clears up my argument.

[Jg]

After testing out some spells a few weeks back in diorama with a rdm and myself on drk and another whm, I would like to point out a few things that we noticed regarding slow and slow2. *note that the resist rates are really weird in diorama so I will choose to not talk about anything regarding more int and skill and how much that effects duration and/or magic accuracy, only the potency is true inside and out of diorama I believe.

We did of course confirm that +mnd makes slow2 stronger, and that the slow2 cap for % is ~31.3%, 33.6%, and 35.9% (if I remember correctly, this was stated in another thread), and slow1 caps at 30% max. This is what we expected. However, one thing that is often overlooked is that the potency of slow and slow2 are based on the total mnd of the caster vs. the mnd of the thing being casted on. For instance, my mnd on dark knight is 59, and the whm we brought had ~85mnd total including a few pieces of gear (we had the whm in the 80-90mnd range to better represent a high lvl HNM etc.). The rdm could easily cap out slow2 against my drk, but against the whm their slow was around 17% out of the possible 35.9% cap, not very effective. This to me reinforces the importance of dot's like shock which lower targets mnd and Absorb-mnd which many drk's never use. On higher lvl HNM where reaching the cap is impossible with current rdm equipment options using these enfeebles can really make a difference.

Those are just a few of my thoughts which I think go unnoticed by a lot of mages so I thought i'd share.

[Turaeg]

How much mnd did the rdm have?

[Seditedi]

Skill always helps accuracy. Also help potency on buff, and certain debuff (like bio2 or 3 I think).
Int/mnd always help accuracy and usually potency (when its not a fixed amount)

I'm still not sure what help buff to stick for the full time. Is it potency or



I can't tell for sure, but I would say 2int=1acc, and 1 skill=1acc, same way acc works for dex and skill.

I always thought that wasn't the case...hm.

Its not, 2 int = 1 macc is definitely too much, it may help slightly, but its not 2 INT = 1 Macc, much smaller for sure.

INT doesn't do shit for the potency of Bio II or III, it'll increase the initial damage, but the DoT is Dark Magic Skill, Dark Magic is a completely different subject all together, because skill does increase its potency while other magic, skill only increases its accuracy. MND will allow paralyze to proc more often, and decrease your MND difference between you and your target, which in turn increases % slow.

[Kaylia]

Skill always helps accuracy. Also help potency on buff, and certain debuff (like bio2 or 3 I think).
Int/mnd always help accuracy and usually potency (when its not a fixed amount)

I'm still not sure what help buff to stick for the full time. Is it potency or



I can't tell for sure, but I would say 2int=1acc, and 1 skill=1acc, same way acc works for dex and skill.

I always thought that wasn't the case...hm.

Its not, 2 int = 1 macc is definitely too much, it may help slightly, but its not 2 INT = 1 Macc, much smaller for sure.

INT doesn't do shit for the potency of Bio II or III, it'll increase the initial damage, but the DoT is Dark Magic Skill, Dark Magic is a completely different subject all together, because skill does increase its potency while other magic, skill only increases its accuracy. MND will allow paralyze to proc more often, and decrease your MND difference between you and your target, which in turn increases % slow.

I didnt say int was increasing bio dmg dot. I was just generalizing for most spell. Unless it wasnt directed at me


And 2int = 1m.acc isn't that farfatched. I say that mostly because I farmed a ton of mobs in riverne B01, and farming naked vs farming with int gears (+20int) seemed to give me a noticeable difference in resist. If it was less than 1m.acc, it wouldn't have been really noticeable, but it is.

[Aerides]

would you stack INT/MND or skill to ensure your spell sticks

Not primarily

I would stack skill/element (hq staff/torque, etc).
Then Int/Mnd everywhere else.

Long version:

General historical posts have shown that MND/INT (while undoubtedly affecting proc/strength of the spells) do also factor in slightly (more like 3+ stat = 1 more skill). In other words, a teeny bit, maybe.. and if you've trolled the rdm forum as you mention you know we have the biggest group of math geeks of most any job out there so I'm inclined to assume there's some truth.

So....

For spells that either land or don't: Sleep/Silence etc: You would go full out skill.

For spells that have variable proc rates (Para/Slow): Stack more mnd.

Of course, it's not like there are tons of options out there. IDK many RDM's who are going to cast Para with their Mythic wand over the Aquilo's, or with a Promise Badge over an Enf. Torque. (Same for AF body over Errants) But beyond those two slots, you'd have to have a lot of (difficult to acquire) r/e gear to consider adding more skill vs. INT/MND:

Nashira Legs (skill) or Errant/Mahatma Legs (mnd/int)
Altruistic Cape (skill) or Rainbow/Prism (mnd/int)
Duelist Hat ...
and so on.

Unless you are a dyn/limbus/sea whore, you're going to run out of "skill vs. mnd/int" choices pretty quickly, so in general put skill where you can, and mnd/int (whichever applies to that spell) where you can't.

[Auspice]

IDK many RDM's who are going to cast Para with their Mythic wand over the Aquilo's, or with a Promise Badge over an Enf. Torque. (Same for AF body over Errants) But beyond those two slots, you'd have to have a lot of (difficult to acquire) r/e gear to consider adding more skill vs. INT/MND:

I've always been torn on this since it seems once you get to a certain point, stacking +MND gives diminishing returns. Although, I still do try to enfeeble stuff with as much +MND and as little +enfeebling as I can get away with. With capped enfeebling merits I don't have trouble landing enfeebles on things with full +MND gear(including Mistilteinn and Numinous+1).

I know there were tests done supposedly comparing wand vs. ele staves but it don't seem to make sense. How can the +13 MND from Mistilteinn and Nmns+1 be less potent than an Aquilo's?

[Septimus]

Enfeebling Skill is simply hit or miss, stats like MND and INT(depends on spell) effect its duration and/or proc rates and %.

I do believe that this part is a misconception. Most enfeebling spells have fairly standard durations, when spells do not last for that full duration it is because they were partially resisted. I believe that partial resists are mainly based off of enfeebling skill mainly because of Fafnir/Nidhogg, although you can get a Paralyze II that is only a short duration, it will still proc a lot in that short time if you have enough MND behind it.

[Septimus]

I know there were tests done supposedly comparing wand vs. ele staves but it don't seem to make sense. How can the +13 MND from Mistilteinn and Nmns+1 be less potent than an Aquilo's?

The only way that would be possible is if the HQ staves gave 15% more potency to enfeebles. (I thought earlier testing said that they didn't.)

[Jeryhn]

I do believe that this part is a misconception. Most enfeebling spells have fairly standard durations, when spells do not last for that full duration it is because they were partially resisted. I believe that partial resists are mainly based off of enfeebling skill mainly because of Fafnir/Nidhogg, although you can get a Paralyze II that is only a short duration, it will still proc a lot in that short time if you have enough MND behind it.

I agree here. I have about 313 skill unmerited (down to 298 on Slow and Para) and will oftentimes notice short durations on Slow and Paralyze, but the effects themselves seem pretty strong while they last.

The only way that would be possible is if the HQ staves gave 15% more potency to enfeebles. (I thought earlier testing said that they didn't.)

They don't. Elemental staves only seem to effect the rate of actually landing an enfeebling spell.

[Auspice]

The only way that would be possible is if the HQ staves gave 15% more potency to enfeebles. (I thought earlier testing said that they didn't.)

So for potency, wand and shield is the way to go? I hope I've been doing it right all this time xD

[Septimus]

The only way that would be possible is if the HQ staves gave 15% more potency to enfeebles. (I thought earlier testing said that they didn't.)

So for potency, wand and shield is the way to go? I hope I've been doing it right all this time xD

If you have the gil/space and want to max out potency, wand and shield is the way to go. But really, you're not going to notice a huge difference over staves.

[Jeryhn]

The only way that would be possible is if the HQ staves gave 15% more potency to enfeebles. (I thought earlier testing said that they didn't.)

So for potency, wand and shield is the way to go? I hope I've been doing it right all this time xD

Only for Slow/Paralyze/Blind. Other enfeebling magics are "all-or-nothing" spells, and should get better use out of a full skill + MAcc + staff combination.

[Septimus]

The only way that would be possible is if the HQ staves gave 15% more potency to enfeebles. (I thought earlier testing said that they didn't.)

So for potency, wand and shield is the way to go? I hope I've been doing it right all this time xD

Only for Slow/Paralyze/Blind. Other enfeebling magics are "all-or-nothing" spells, and should get better use out of a full skill + MAcc + staff combination.

I was under the impression that Blind was an all or nothing spell also. (And in most cases even the all is nothing.) When did people determine that INT affects blind? (Finally, a reason to have that Astral Aspis.)

[Jeryhn]

The only way that would be possible is if the HQ staves gave 15% more potency to enfeebles. (I thought earlier testing said that they didn't.)

So for potency, wand and shield is the way to go? I hope I've been doing it right all this time xD

Only for Slow/Paralyze/Blind. Other enfeebling magics are "all-or-nothing" spells, and should get better use out of a full skill + MAcc + staff combination.

I was under the impression that Blind was an all or nothing spell also. (And in most cases even the all is nothing.) When did people determine that INT affects blind? (Finally, a reason to have that Astral Aspis.)

Pretty sure someone did some Ballista-related test regarding hit rate, but Blind is a funky spell to be testing anyway, and most tests we see aren't going to completely accurate (like the concrete numbers we can find with Slow).

Blind is a pretty lolspell either way.