MACC Affinity Staves. [Flame Wars]

duelist's chapeau +2 with augment might be a good choice for the MACC-Slow Set aswell. It has Augment to enhance Slow II duration, 5% for each merit.. since well.. when you use a MACC Set you "fear" that it wont land, so more duration might be nice. If you cant get Hyaline Af3+2 head seems good. (Since i guess you wont have/easy get an Iaso mitra or Spurrina coif)

tbh not even sure how much MND someone would need today since the potency probably has a low cap.. i remeber reading somewhere that the cap is still like 75.

I also have no idea, Allthough if it is low cap all that still adds to the MACC overall anyway!

I do have one burning question though....

I wonder if Immunobreak works better overall if you have a high MACC Enfeeb skill?

Seen!

Cheers

Well as long as it lands with +2 body and a half decent mnd set potency will be capped on pretty much anything it will land on, this is true. Rdm is by no means dead other jobs just do what it does and more.

Are you saying Mnd doesn't add to macc for slow and para or am I reading this wrong?

Yes, it does.

Correct, skill = macc, mnd = potency... Why the hell else would you build a macc staff?

From BGwiki:


For as long as I've played, I've always been under the assumption that mnd provided a boost, albeit small, to the magic accuracy as well the potency boost. You're saying this is wrong, where does your info come from?

That indicates that dstat works as dDex does for crit rate. But if it does in fact work that way, you'd likely gear the same either way.

wat

Ye old enfeebler carried around two sets because particular targets required immense amounts of macc to reliably land a spell. Full potency builds weren't entirely devoid of macc, but their +60 MND slow set was offering in the neighborhood of 30 macc, where as their dedicated macc builds were sporting more than double that amount.

Regardless, basing your argument on what players did back when our mechanical libraries were in their infancy is asinine.

The fact is at this point in time you have even more reason to carry 2 sets. The macc staves should allow you to gear straight potency anyway.

I agree and disagree. I'd say there's about as much reason to carry both sets now as there was back then. Both then and now, the difference between the two extremes was/is pretty significant.

And what is your basis for believing that isn't the case?

dINT plays a part in potency and accuracy for traditional black magic, and given that we know that dMND plays a part in traditional white magic potency, it follows that it also has a hand in accuracy.

That's not how the fallacy of four terms works.

It is how the fallacy of the false analogy works, though.

What you're doing is concluding that a universal property of a closed system ceases to apply to an individual branch of that system, based on, as far as you've chosen to divulge, absolutely nothing.

You have also failed to give any supporting evidence besides a snippet paraphrased from a BGwiki page you didn't link. Not saying that its wrong, but the difference between nukes and enfeebles as a mechanic are very different, and to assume that stats affect them equally is a fallacy as well.

Nukes can get half, quarter, sixth, etc resists, enfeebles either land or they don't and at that time the potency is determinded for the remainder of the duration. While a stat like MND may affect the duration being halved as a partial resist, I'd file that under potency, not acc. When was the last time you saw a nuke flat out resisted or a message saying that a monster is immune to that nuke?

By your logic the mechanics of WS's should be universal as well, when we know that they are not.

Ignoring that examples of minimized enfeebling durations do exist, it appears as if you didn't read what I said.

I'm not claiming that all spells function identically, I'm claiming that there exists a single universal property of traditional spell resistance: the category's primary attribute influences accuracy. This holds true across the board for all types of offensive spells, so assuming that it doesn't apply to offensive white magic is absolutely baseless.

If nothing else, you two have a remarkable knack for presenting false analogies.

(the fact that fSTR plays a part in every physical weapon skill very soundly supports what I'm suggestion)

Proof is a matter of perspective; what I have is unrelenting precedence.

And stop with the tall doctor spiel. That isn't in any way parallel.

we never said it didn't have bearing on things like durration, because it does, we are talking about potency vs accuracy, and in that category, though mnd may have some effect on the general term "accuracy", it has far more effect on potency. The way its proposed as dMND, stacking it only affects accuracy to a point and only (assuming you are correct) at HALF the value of actual accuracy stats like Macc and enfeebling skill. Neither of which affect the way you would gear in either situation.

I'm talking about fSTR affecting Accuracy, when you know as well as I do, STR and ACC have nothing to do with each other as far as a WS is concerned.

Duration is relevant. In some instances, the accuracy of enfeeblement manifests itself in duration rather than potency or outright inapplicability.

And I'm not sure why you're trying to make a case for the relative efficacy of stacking a base attribute in lieu of raw magic accuracy. That's both subjective and irrelevant.

Your partner over there is suggesting that a universal property of offensive magic ceases to exist with a particular branch because.. I don't know. He has yet to explain why. I'm responding to that assertion and no other.