Credit goes to Aurik for translation of the Japanese website. I figured since we have pages for calculating WS and physical damage, we may as well have one for magic damage too. -Nivlakian 09:51, 27 August 2006 (EDT)

Also of note... The Japanese convention for MAB and MDB in the source is different from the convention used on wikipedia. For example, the Japanese site writes MDB200. Most would consider MDB to start at 1 and write that as MDB+100 or say it has 100 MDB. -Nivlakian 10:08, 27 August 2006 (EDT)

After some testing, it appears that AM2 also has an M of 2.0 and the same constants (V) of 710. -Nivlakian 13:44, 27 August 2006 (EDT)

Re: Sorc Gloves / Static earring, the JP website seemed to indicate they didn't multiply by 1.05 but rather added 0.05 to the modifier. Is this an intentional change from my translation? --Aurikasura 16:32, 27 August 2006 (EDT)

Actually, when I was rewording that part, I overlooked your wording and ended up writing it according to my personal observations. For example, pre-nukenerf, I nuked the Limbus version of Fafnir intending to MB w/ gloves/earring, but the SC did not go off. My thunder IV landed for 1060 damage. In that same setup, I nuked again to MB and it resulted in 1514 damage which is 42.8% more damage. The closest I can figure to get that number is 1.3 (MB) x 1.1 (equip).

My friend tested his gloves before, but I don't have his numbers, but it was a 5% increase. Adding 5% to 30% to become 35% results in a ~3.8% increase over previous damage which was not what we experienced.

I can revert it to your version if you'd prefer or perhaps should be marked for further confirmation? -Nivlakian 20:18, 27 August 2006 (EDT)

Mark it for further investigation, I suppose. I have neither so I can't really confirm it :P --Aurikasura 21:11, 27 August 2006 (EDT)

I've posted MB tests in my usertalk. Interestingly, additional SCs does not add 20% damage but instead 5%. Also, it appears the MB damage is calculated prior to MAB. ie. (D*resist)*MB*MBGloves*MBEarring*MAB with flooring after each part is multiplied.

Credit goes to Suiram of Pandemonium for analyzing the results. I'm going to alter the page accordingly. - Nivlakian 15:09, 29 August 2006 (EDT)

Awesome data. Thanks! --Aurikasura 15:27, 29 August 2006 (EDT)

Great job there to everyone involved in compiling that. I've wondered about additional SCs' effect on MB bonus for a while. --Ichthyos 15:10, 29 August 2006 (EDT)

Suiram of Pandemonium has done some testing regarding the effects of triple ice in Beaucedine Glacier on Tundra Tigers and finds that it is not capped at 1.3, but will go to 1.35. He used the 100INT and 1.5MAB for the testing as was done with some of our other tests. What was interesting is that he has found that Sorcerer's Tonban has no effect during triple conditions suggesting that the term is capped at 1.35. I will modify the information accordingly. -Nivlakian 14:38, 14 September 2006 (EDT)

A bit more info for magic damage reduction
While I was translating Blue Magic Damage page, I asked Apple Pie in DiV a few question regarding certain variables, and he pointed me out a Good JP BLM website.
In that website, There's additional information about magic damage cut from different spells/monster JA/family
I've translated that section in Calculating Weapon Skill Damage page. I hope we can synchronize this page and other damage calculation pages.

Another thing is the detail of the calculation. According to that site, we should do truncation for each step of multiplication. That is: x var 2)*var3)*var4)

Apple also pointed me out this website for cap on each BLM spells. I notice there was inconsistency between numbers supplied by Sloppysue and the ones provided on that site. Which one should we follow? don't ask me.
I would translate them, but I kinda don't have time right now--VZX 05:52, 22 October 2006 (EDT)

The "Good JP BLM website" you referenced is already listed among the sources at the bottom. From further testing, it seems some of the information on there was incorrect and most of those corrections are mentioned above in the discussion. Also, flooring at each step is mentioned at the top of the page: "Actual Damage is calculated by multiplying the following factors in order and flooring after each step. " It is written that way since a long string of int( or floor( becomes difficult to read. -Nivlakian 01:48, 24 October 2006 (EDT)

What I would like to know is what happens when Caster's INT - Target's INT = 0. And can someone explain to me how to calculate the constant in the sum for "dINT > 0, but after some inflection point"?
Eirwen 12:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


This doesn't touch on how the Shell line of spells reduce magic damage. It seems that they are applied separately from MDB, but I haven't seen a formula anywhere. i.e. is Shell IV -22% or 200/256 or something else?--Valyana 02:42, 25 October 2006 (EDT)

According to this reference, Shells, Shining Ruby, Bubble curtain are categorized as "Magic Damage Cut". This is not the same with Target Magic Damage Reduction section though (as far as I comprehend the JP site). Should we change the definition?
I have translated the lists of Magic Damage Cut buff in magical WS damage section though--VZX 06:08, 25 October 2006 (EDT)

In Aurik's original translation of that site, the section with information on Shell is what became "Target Magic Damage Reduction". However, he did not include that data in the translation. There are also some discrepancies between the values listed in that source and people's personal observations, and given the number of inaccuracies already discovered there, it is probably best to omit them until they can be confirmed. Suiram 19:23, 25 October 2006 (EDT)

I think this line

 Note: most HNMs don't have this effect, but rather a huge MDB value (ex. Tiamat = MDB+100, Jormungand = MDB+124) 

should go into Magic Attack Bonus / Magic Defense Bonus section, not Target Magic Damage Reduction

I added a section on the reduction in damage when casting on multiple targets with -ga spell, and inserted it into the appropriate part of the calculation. I'll amend my user talk page with the details of the tests used to arrive at those values and its location in the overall formula in the coming days. I also adjusted the resist section to remove 0 as a possible value in that part of the equation. As for the line regarding some HNMs not possessing Target Magic Damage Reduction, I think it's fine where it is. -Suiram 02:29, 26 October 2006 (EDT)

I added "with respect to magic bursts" to the sentence "Further testing would be necessary to confirm the order of the other parts." The order of the other portions staff, day/weather, etc have already been tested. -Nivlakian 15:58, 26 October 2006 (EDT)


I just want to ask to confirm something:

  • Magic Attack Bonus / Magic Defense Bonus
  • MAB is divided by MDB.

It says it's divided by instead of subtracted from then multiplied to the magic damage.

Using a previous example to state my question, if a 75BLM cast Thunder IV on Tiamat, with MDB+100, would the overall damage mutiplication be .32 (MADIV - 100) or would it be .66? (1.32 / 2)--Dragonspight 05:16, 22 November 2006 (EST)

The overall damage multiplier--if this section is correct--would be 1.32/2.0 = 0.66. However, both the statement that MAB/MDB takes place without intermediate flooring and the statement that Tiamat has 2.0 MDB rather than 50% Target Magic Damage Reduction are taken directly from the original translation and are as-yet unconfirmed aspects of the Magic Damage formula, so take it with a grain of salt. However, even if those parts are inaccurate, it would still work out to roughly 0.66. Suiram 16:00, 22 November 2006 (EST)

M and V

I recently completed tests to confirm the M and V values for all regular single-target series, -ga series, and AM series I nukes. All of the M values were as previously documented, but the values for V previously listed, which came from allakhazam source, were incorrect for most I and II series nukes as well as often missing and sometimes incorrect for -ga spells. I didn't test AM II M or V because those were recently tested by Nivlakian and I trust his methodology. I'll post the data from my tests on my Usertalk page sometime in the next few days. I also made some minor cosmetic changes to that section, such as changing the table format so there were borders between cells. -Suiram 19:25, 22 November 2006 (EST)

I added M and V for the -ja spells based on testing in saruta baruta: My findings show that stoneja, waterj and firaja all have an M of 2.3 and aeroja an M of 2.3 repeating. I can't explain this at the moment, but those are the numbers that make the math work. Velvetisis 15:00, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

Target Magic Damage Reduction

I renamed this section to say "Adjustment" since it can be either a bonus or reduction to the damage a particular monster takes. Previously, the heading makes it seem that it can only be a number less than 100%. -Nivlakian 19:43, 22 November 2006 (EST)

Ninjutsu, divine magic, and Others

Would some lovely soul be willing to go about finding the damages for Ninjutsu nukes and other damage spells so that they can be applied to this formula~? --Dragonspight 09:40, 2 December 2006 (EST)

Seconded --Olorin 16:50, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Reverted Changes

If you're going to change something in this article, please at least present some supporting evidence for the change. I have reverted the article to the previous version. -Nivlakian 13:02, 16 December 2006 (EST)

Incorrect Magic burst and Weather bonus

Double weather is 1.2, not 1.25

Magic burst is always 1.33 unless you're wearing Static Earring and/or Sorc. Gloves. These ADD, not MULTIPLY, 0.05 to the multiplier. The number of WS in the renkei does not change anything.

I made these corrections and they were reverted... why? Would you like a test with screenshots or what?

Also: Actually, when I was rewording that part, I overlooked your wording and ended up writing it according to my personal observations. For example, pre-nukenerf, I nuked the Limbus version of Fafnir intending to MB w/ gloves/earring, but the SC did not go off. My thunder IV landed for 1060 damage. In that same setup, I nuked again to MB and it resulted in 1514 damage which is 42.8% more damage. The closest I can figure to get that number is 1.3 (MB) x 1.1 (equip).

1060 * (1.33+0.10) = 1515

Your damage didn't add up correctly because the multiplier is 1.33, not 1.3

-Kerberoz 15:52, 19 December 2006 (EST)

If you could provide screenshots or other logs along the lines of what can be found on Niv's talk page ( it would be easier to confirm your 3 assertions:

1) weather x2 is 1.2
weather x2 + day is +0.35, proven from Suiram's test
day is +0.1
therefore we conclude that weather x2 is +0.2

2) base MB modifier is 1.33, not 1.3
This is drawn from Niv's MB test
Normal thunder2 damage: 343
2-part Light MB thunder2 damage: 445
[343 * 1.3] = 445
[343 * 1.33] = 456

Clearly 1.30 gives a better approximation than 1.33.

3) Sorc gloves / static earring add 0.05 each instead of multiplying by 1.05 individually / 1.10 paired
This is drawn from Niv's MB test

Static Earring or Sorc Gloves only
Normal thunder2 damage: 343
2-part Light MB thunder2 damage: 466
Guessing at the formula...
[343 * 1.35] = 463
[343 * 1.38] = 473
[[343 * 1.3] * 1.05] = 467
[[343 * 1.3] * 268/256] = 465
[[343 * 1.05] * 1.3] = 468.0
[[343 * 268/256] * 1.30] = 466

Static Earring + Sorcerer's Gloves
Normal thunder2 damage: 343
2-part Light MB thunder2 damage: 489
[343 * 1.40] = 480
[343 * 1.43] = 490
[[343 * 1.3] * 1.10] = 489
[[[343 * 1.3] * 1.05] * 1.05] = 490
[[343 * 1.3] * 280/256] = 486
[[[343 * 1.3] * 268/256] * 268/256] = 486
[[343 * 1.1] * 1.3] = 490
[[343 * 280/256] * 1.3] = 487
[[[343 * 268/256] * 268/256] * 1.3] = 487

I can't find the exact formula used, but the closest we've found is [[V*mb]*mult], where mb is 1.3, 1.35 etc and multi is 1.05-1.10 depending on gear used.

--Aurikasura 20:36, 19 December 2006 (EST)

I was the Hume BLM in those MB tests, and they ended up revealing some very important information in a few ways for the damage formula. The JP wiki that serves as the foundation for this page that Aurik originally translated and which is sourced at the bottom had a number of inaccuracies with respect to the Magic Burst section. For one, it listed each additional renkei as adding 0.2 to the MB bonus, which we confirmed to be only 0.05. There was also a question as to whether or not AF2 hands and static earring were added to the MB term or multiplied separately, which the tests confirmed for the latter. Finally--and I believe most importantly due to its subtlety--the data we obtained showed that the MB term could not be calculated after the MAB term and still arrive at the final damage values over all of the tests due to flooring.

Anyhow, here is the relevant portion of the formula for those tests (dINT=34, M=1.5, V=178, MAB=1.5 for all):

floor(floor(floor(floor(229 * MB) * MB1) * MB2) * 1.5)

MB is the MB bonus, MB1 and MB2 are the respective bonuses from AF2 hands and static earring. If you plug in the values described by the current formula you see that it works out to exactly the damage we observed. If you happen to find some other values that would also arrive at the same damage in every case, then feel free to develop a test that would determine which of the models is correct and edit this page in accordance with your findings. Please don't, however, edit in information that you erroneously believe to be the case simply on the basis of your unfounded beliefs. -- Suiram 05:43, 20 December 2006 (EST)

To help clarify how to calculate the magic burst damage section, I added an example. I have also added examples of Target Magic Damage Adjustment. The Ebony Pudding and Eo'ghrah information come from my own testing while the others are cited in the Japanese source at the bottom of the page.

One thing that I'm curious about is whether Target Magic Damage Adjustment and Shell are cumulative or multiplied seperately. While solo'ing a light Aw'ghrah once a long time ago, my Thunder IV did 964 damage. The Aw'ghrah then cast Shell IV on itself and Thunder IV then did 723 which is exactly 75% of previous damage. Assuming Aw'ghrah have a magic damage adjustment similar to Eo'ghrah (or even the same), it appears they may be multiplied seperately in order to arrive at such a clearcut 25% loss of damage. Although I have screenshots of this, unfortunately, I don't recall my exact setup at the time making it impossible to do a proper/thorough calculation. I may try to test it again sometime. -Nivlakian 18:17, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Actually, thinking about it more and using the value for Shell IV in the JP source, the magic adjustment is probably cumulative. Assuming Aw'ghrah share the 87.5% reduction of Eo'ghrah, the Thunder IV damage prior to reduction could have been 1102 as 1102 * (1- 32/256) = 964.25. Shell IV is supposed to reduce damage by 56/256... (1102 * (1 - 32/256 - 56/256)) = 723.1875. This properly explains the damage. -Nivlakian 18:32, 3 January 2007 (EST)

I removed the line about Tiamat and Jormungand altogether, as preliminary tests indicate that it's neither strictly MDB as previously entered nor an exact 50% damage TMDA reduction. I also re-posted the link to the the BG thread that serves as the foundation for this page, but at the new domain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Suiram (talkcontribs).

Ebony Puddings take around 10% more magic damage, not 25% as stated on the page. I'm not sure of the exact value but it is certainly not 25%. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kalenedrael (talkcontribs).

If you consult Nivlakian's usertalk page, you can verify for yourself the tests he used to determine the INT and TMDA for Ebony Pudding. -Suiram 11:56, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Tests Regarding Double Weather Conditions

As this continues to be a point of confusion, I'm reposting the data here. The day/weather bonus for double-weather was originally translated as +0.25. Since this went against the general understanding of +0.2, I set out to verify it. An image of the chatlog for the relevant portion of my test can be found here:

In this chatlog entry, you can see me casting on three different tigers. For every cast I had 100 INT and 1.5 total MAB, with triple-ice weather present. The first tiger I did not wear sorcerer's tonban at all, the second tiger I wore sorcerer's tonban, and the third I did not wear it for the first cast, but wore it for the second cast. floor(floor(dINT*2+541)*1.5) = 1030 solves for dINT = 73 floor(floor(floor(73*1.5 + 320)*1.35)*1.5) = 868

So the bonus for day and double weather with no sorcerer's tonban is 1.35. Since Day bonus is known to be +0.1, both from previous tests and an earlier part of above test, this suggests that the bonus for double weather is indeed +0.25. The damage to the second tiger suggests that the term is capped at 1.35 (whereas it should otherwise be 1.4 with day, double weather, and sorcerer's tonban), and the the third tiger is simply verification of the existence of a cap. -Suiram 03:53, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I did some tests a couple of months ago to independently confirm this as well. I think I posted the results on alla, but now I don't remember where for sure. I tested double weather directly (rather than relying solely on 1.35-0.1) and it is indeed a 1.25 bonus. I also learned that double weather always procs as double weather or doesn't proc at all (not single sometimes, double sometimes, as has been suggested elsewhere). And finally, I confirmed that tonban adds no additional damage when double wx + day already proc (presumably a cap as described). --VxSote 08:48, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

I adjusted the line about the cap on this term to (hopefully) improve clarity and prevent future misunderstandings. -Suiram 12:23, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Decimal Truncation

I added a line regarding decimal truncation to both the MAB/MDB section and the TMDA section. Both of these claims will require further testing, but so far it is the only explanation I have to otherwise conflicting data.

For MAB/MDB, I tested on an Aura Pot in the Shrine of Ru'Avitau, with no staff or day/weather bonus, and keeping my MAB constant at 1.5. I have independently determined Magic Pots to have a TMDA reduction of 50% using the Blue Magic spell 1000 Needles, which ignores MDB. With 100 INT Blizzard 4 and Thunder 4 did 368 and 391 respectively, while with 105 INT they did 375 and 398 respectively. Calculating MAB/MDB to an arbitrarily long decimal expansion with reasonable assumptions for the target's MDB resulted in each case in values that differed from the predicted values in at least one cast of the four, and similarly for a three-place truncation. The only assumption that made all of the values fit with their predictions was for a MDB value of 1.12, truncated to 2 decimal places, so that the final value of the term is 1.33.

For TMDA, this is due to reports of the special weaponskill, Discoid, used by the Zhayolm Remnants boss, Battleclad Chariot. When used against a single player target with no TMDA, it does 4400 damage, however when used against a single player target with Shell 4, it does 3436 damage. Since floor(4400 * (200/256)) = 3437, floor(4400 * 0.78) = 3432, and floor(4400 * 0.781) = 3436, it seems reasonable at this time to conclude that this term also undergoes decimal truncation before being calculated in the overall damage formula. -Suiram 08:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I removed the line regarding truncation in the TMDA term, as the data above suggesting it is inconclusive and such a calculation would seem to contradict previous data regarding that term. -Suiram 11:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

The critical value for D

Testing with Tiny Mandragora and Bumblebees using Thunder I have determined the following:

  • They have the same INT.
  • They have 6 INT.
  • The "critical value" is reached when dINT=78, and both unknown consts are 78.

It remains to be tested if this critical number changes under other circumstances- I have to imagine it does or it'd have been filled out by now as this test was stupidly easy to carry out, and I am hesitant to believe we've just been lazy about finding it. I'm going to try testing with different nukes to see if this number changes based on that somehow (maybe a tier modifier?). --Toksyuryel 10:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Can confirm my suspicion that the critical value is not the same for every nuke, testing with water I got a number way below my dINT which suggests I've long since passed the value, where with the same dINT on thunder the number was equal to dINT. I don't have a means to lower my INT so I can't test what the critical value is for water. I can however say that stone's damage cap is 41 (I tried to test with this first, but found the damage wouldn't change no matter what my INT was so it had to be capped. Interestingly I could not cap on Thunder at all- I'm thinking that the cap isn't on the damage at all, but rather on the contribution from dINT. If I had more INT gear I could attempt to locate Thunder's cap to give a clearer picture, but I guess I'll have to save that for another time.) Right now my theory is that the the critical value won't be affected by tier, only by element. I'll get to testing this shortly. --Toksyuryel 10:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Based on just working the equation, I can say with 95% certainty that the critical point for water is probably dINT=57. This number checks out for the whopping 3 numbers I have to work with thanks to the damage cap, so anyone with the means to lower their INT below 76 please test lower values so this can be verified. I'm going to locate these values for all 6 elements before I move on to the tier test, so I can then see quickly if my theory pans out. Also, water's damage cap is D=66. --Toksyuryel 11:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like none of my theories were right, and given that I'm already at 103 dINT with water 2 (tested all the way from 76 adding 1 INT each time) and still haven't found the critical point, I'm going to just stop testing now. Each individual nuke has its own cap and its own critical point where INT stops being useful- however that point is going to be so high for tier 4 nukes as to be quite likely unattainable against the mobs that matter (possibly even for the ones that don't- I won't be testing it though), so for practical purposes we can pretend this phenomenon doesn't even exist. If anyone else wants to pick up this test, knock yourself out, but I no longer see any point to it. I couldn't find the damage caps for Fire or Blizzard either, however Aero's damage cap appears to be D=95. The presumed critical point based on my testing for Aero is dINT=35, for Fire is dINT=48, and for Blizzard is dINT=60. --Toksyuryel 12:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If you review the allakhazam source, you'll see that some inflection points and one cap were previously determined. The values vary slightly from yours, but without testing myself, I cannot say which are correct. --VxSote 18:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Helix base damage value

I dispute the 3 value for helix base damage shown on the chart- simply because even after minimizing all other factors (by being naked), all of my helix spells cause more damage with their initial strike than stone, water, and aero, which all are listed as having a significantly higher base damage than the helixes. Tahngarthortalk-contribs (I also used a damage calculator app written by someone who knows about these formulae and came out with a higher D value)

Yes, I think the base damage for Helix spells should be changed to 25. --KyteStrike 20:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


I think Enervation's 10% magic defense down would be worth mentioning in this article, but I'm unsure on where to put it. --KyteStrike 01:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Experimental Magic Damage Calculator


Trying to build a calculator, please check it and report problems if there is any.

Link removed - Pornographic content —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bashfr (talkcontribs). on 12:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC?)

Oh my gosh! You rock, dude! I was just looking up info to see how easily it could be done, but now I can use yours instead! :) --Boswen 23:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Divine Magic

After performing several tests, I've determined the M value for Divine spells and added to the page (while seperating the magic catagories between elemental and divine). Although strange, tests have concluded that Banish and Banishga are the only spells with an M value below the standard 1.0. Although I was able to obtain these M values, several divine spell base damage V still requires determination and possible retesting since the recent updates to banish spells.

Once more, damage bonus granted by Afflatus effects has yet to be added into these equations. Although they've been determined to grant a 400% damage bonus, it is still unclear as to where this bonus is caculated within the order of this expression.

Further testing is necessary. --Luke 18:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Formula for dINT beyond a critical value

I'm having some issues with consistency in the following formula:

For dINT > 0, but after some inflection point: D = V + (const + (dINT-const) * M / 2)) (above some critical value, adding INT/MND becomes half as effective)

My assumption is that, once I increase dINT past the inflection point, the value of the expression should be close to a value for a dINT that is not past the inflection point.

I'm also assuming that 'const' represents the critical value of dINT.

Let's say for some instance that the critical value for dINT, or 'const' = 50.

Let's also set M = 2.0, and V = 100.

If I start off with a dINT value of 48, which is below the critical value, I'd use the following formula:

For dINT > 0, but less than some inflection point: D = V + (dINT * M)

so in that case, D = 100 + (48 * 2.0) = 196

Now, if I increase dINT to 52, which is greater than the critical value, I'd expect a value for D that's slightly greater than 198 but, according to the formula:

D = 100 + (50 + (52 - 50) * 2.0 / 2)) = 152

Unless I'm interpreting the formula incorrectly, this value seems incorrect.

I'm figuring the proper formula should be something like this:

D = V + (const + (dINT-const) / 2)) * M

Using my sample values with this, I'd get

D = 100 + (50 + (52 - 50) / 2)) * 2 = 202

This seems more in line with my expectations.

Holy Format

In the V values table, could we not merge Holy into the AMI row? For all intents and purposes, Holy is the White Magic Ancient Magic as far as I am concerned, and it would also greatly improve the structure of the table itself. I'll reformat the table if no one has any objections. --Dragonspight 23:32, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Well Holy doesn't really share any characteristics of the ancient magics (long cast time but high damage). Holy is very quick but not that powerful. Tahngarthortalk-contribs 00:37, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

M values for Tier V nukes.

I'm changing the article back to 2.299 for now. See the discussion here: --VxSote 02:26, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

"after some inflection point" values, and maximum values for D

"after some inflection point" (or critcal point) is also known as the "half-life".

For Banish and Banishga, this half-life is half way from dMND=0 to the maximum possible value for D.

Inflection point = (D_cap - V) / 2
Example - Banish: (64 - 14) / 2 = 25 dMND (D = 39 dmg)

Cap value for D = "Inflection point" * 2 * M + V
Example - Banish: 25 * 2 * 1.0 + 14 = 64 dmg (at 75 dMND)

For Banish, it takes 25 dMND to reach the inflection point. After this point, each +1 dMND adds half the amount (0.5) to D, so it takes a further 50 dMND after reaching the inflection point to hit the cap for D.

Banish: V=14, M=1.0, "inflection point"=dMND+25, D_cap=64
Banishga: V=50, M=1.0, "inflection point"=dMND+46, D_cap=142
Banish II: V=85, M=1.0, "inflection point"=dMND+113, D_cap=? (311)
Banishga II: V=180, M=1.0, "inflection point"=dMND+133, D_cap=? (446)

I was unable to reach the caps for Banish II and Banishga II on my RDM85/whm, but from the inflection points I reached on lv -1 Bumblebees, which have a tMND of 6, it is possible to calculate what the caps should theoretically be.

This also applies to black magic damage, but I was only able to test cap values on RDM up to Fire 1 which already needs 138 dINT just to reach the cap.
By the time you get to tier III black magic and higher, the inflection points should be over 230 dINT, and caps of over 700 dINT
--Mougurijin 03:43, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

Ninjutsu Damage

The Scars of Abyssea update increased Ninjutsu damage. does the current base damage table reflect this? Tahngarthortalk-contribs 00:38, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Update: looking at the history, the ninjutsu V values have remained the same before and after the date of the update, so these values must be incorrect now. Tahngarthortalk-contribs 01:15, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Is ninjutsu damage based on dINT like elemental magic?
It might be that the M values need changing too? I changed the M and V values for Banish spells last week because they were incorrect or maybe out-of-date.
It shouldn't be hard to test though... I'll check ichi/ni when I get round to levelling my /nin37, but that probably won't be for several weeks. --Mougurijin 17:15, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

In the latest update, this has been complicated by skill affecting ninjutsu damage. That said, ele ninjutsu does use dINT. INT affects accuracy and damage. Tahngarthortalk-contribs 07:35, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

M and V for Stoneja and Waterja

I added numbers for these based on my tests on bumblebees in sarutabaruta. Velvetisis 05:50, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

These numbers continue to jive with Saplings in Batallia Downs. The same link should still apply. Velvetisis 21:56, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

V vaules for Thunder V, Thundaja and Comet

Thunder V: 874
Taru 99BLM/RDM naked using Burn on mandies first to lower their INT to 1. 10 MAB from potency merits, 40 from MAB trait. 100 dINT, 50 MAB damage was 1654 consistently. Additional 10 MAB and 34 INT from gear pushed damage up to 1891 as expected.

Thundaja: 1004
Same setup as above. Naked damage consistent 1851. 10 MAB 34 INT gear pushed up to 2100. Calculations say 2099 but that's probably close enough.

Comet: M=2.3 V=963
Taru 99BLM/RDM naked using Burn on mandies first to lower their INT to 1. 40 MAB from trait. Naked with 100 dINT gave consistent damage of 1670. Adding 25 INT gave 1751 damage, calculations say 1750. Adding 34 INT and 47 MAB pushed to 2378, calculations say 2376. Adding an extra 6 INT gave 2402, matching calculations.

I added the V value in the AM I spot since that is where Holy is for Light element. I figured AM I would be Comet and AM II would be Meteor when we get it. --Yamoto 09:38, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.