Do Abyss Feet +2 Need To Stay On For The JA Boosts

Just making sure I understand the wording on bg wiki correctly. Does it mean I will lose the -10% defense reduction bonus if I take them off but I would get that bonus back if I put them back on while Last Resort is active? Also what about the Desparate Blows augment? Do the feet also need to be kept on for that bonus as well?

While I'm here I may as well ask, are there any other DRK AF/Relic/Emp/Reforged pieces that need to be kept on for their bonuses to remain active? From what I can tell everything else looks like being equipped only precast or midcast would be fine
.

1-Why are you using the lv90 version
2-Wiki literally answers your question

1. I recently returned from an 11 year hiatus and am currently a little overwhelmed with how the game has changed. I haven't been worried about gear upgrades as finishing Adoulin and RoV ate my priority. I have everything I need to reforge AF/Relic/Emp except for all of the rems tales.
2. Yes, I was mostly wanting to confirm what I read.
3. Still unsure about bonus to Desparate Blows although I am going to assume since Desparate Blows is a job trait they need to stay equipped while Last Resort is active to work

Instead of asking a bunch of questions here, I recommend reading the last 10 (20?) pages of whatever thread the job you're interested in has. It'll have up to date gear and sets. I also recommend checking if bgwiki has a job guide for whatever jobs you're interested in

https://www.bg-wiki.com/ffxi/Category:Job_Guides
and
https://www.bg-wiki.com/ffxi/All_Jobs_Gear_Sets

Lastly though bgwiki is not perfect, it's generally safe to assume that if it flat out says what a thing does then you don't need to ask here to confirm that it does what it says.

The wording isn't the best. Replacing to "restore a bonus" could mean that you can only restore the LR bonus by putting the Fallen's feet on again. It needs clarifying, because I have always stayed away from using it.

If it means that you can pop LR with it equipped, and then keep that defense penalty after removing? Then it should be made clearer. I find it a little patronising to tell Bojack to just "research better", when he has already done so, and came here asking a perfectly acceptable question.

DB augment needs to have it kept on for it to work. The def penalty is the same afaik, should be esy to confirm just use it with it on, swap it with another armor of similar def, check the changes

This statement is not clear at all. What does "removed and replaced to restore bonus" mean, and how is that unlike abyss feet.

I believe it means that you can use Last Resort, swap feet (lose bonus), put feet back on and get bonus back, unlike previous iterations where you lose the bonus entirely the moment you swap out/back to the feet. But what the OP is asking is: can you use the feet with LR, get the bonus, then use an entirely different feet and retain the bonus, or do the feet need to stay on the entire time to get the bonus effect. I don't know why it's so hard to explicitly say on wiki "You need to have feet equipped to retain the bonus/enhancement". "restore the bonus", "replace" is vague terminology and even I don't quite understand what that is trying to say (but I know how the feet operate). OP's question imo was perfectly valid.

The rule I always look at it is: if said piece enhances duration = macro only. If it is "enhances effect" = must be worn. I'm sure there's outliers, but that's how I have always gone with.

tldr - you need to keep feet on to retain the bonus, its gone the moment you swap out.

This isn't true at all. Just a few months ago people were arguing about how Hasso has "always operated", but the BG wiki page had some unclear information as how it related to Zanshin. The only way that page got updated is because someone here misunderstood how it worked, called out the wiki page, and then someone who knew how it worked clarified the page. Mentioning something that is unclear here is good practice and doesn't hurt anyone.

Yeah, never would have guessed what Buuki explained just looking at the wiki page. Most other JAs the equipment only needs to be on at activation, not after.

Further more, saying something is unlike something else and then not explaining how it is unlike that thing, or not explaining how that thing operates which would then tell you how it is unlike the first thing is.. not a great way to make an example.

Was looking at the jp wiki and unless i and a friend are reading it wrong it also gives enm-20 when equipped?


暗黒騎士AF2「アビスソルレット（または、その打ち直し品）」の装備中に限り、防御力ダウンのみ10%分軽減することが可能。またこの時敵対心-20の効果もある。

またこの時敵対心-20の効果もある。

Only while equipped with the Dark Knight AF2 "Abyss Sollet (or its reworked version)", only the defensive downgrade can be reduced by 10%. It also has the effect of -20 to hostility at this time.

Also, the effect of -20 to hostility is also available at this time.

Thing with jp wiki is afaik they rarely verify anything so could be wrong

I mean that's fine, but what's wrong with a returning player asking some questions? Not like this game can't use more new people and discussion, even if you think it's lazy. Your comment comes off very passive aggressive and I don't think people realize how unnecessary that type of attitude is, no offense. Too much gate keeping in this community these days

How is “can be removed and replaced to restore the bonus, unlike NQ/+1” unclear? Only part that might be unclear is how the NQ/+1 piece works. Going to either of those pages states “Reduces the defense penalty of Last Resort by 10%. Must remain equipped.”

This isnt difficult to understand my word.

Remove drk feet from foot slot and replace drk feet back in foot slot.

Yeah but definition #1 says "take the place of", so replace in the context of the wiki description could mean "you can remove the relic feet and replace them with something else and still get the bonus". Now, the word "restore" is included in the explanation which would help the reader to understand you're talking about the same piece of equipment, and not another piece, but the writing style is roundabout.

Why would you say "you can remove the feet and replace them (meaning put them back on) to restore the bonus" when you could just say something simple like "bonus only applies when feet are worn"? The latter is explicit. Also, the point about previous iterations is irrelevant; why would anyone care to look back at the previous version to see how that one works just to understand how the current one does? Just tell me how the one I'm reading about works, idc about the last version.

“Only applies when feet are worn” is equally vague to people from the 75 era who were using Abyss Sollerets and have years of memory knowing the bonus goes away when they are removed (until next JA use with boots on).

Also what do you mean by “definition number 1”, words can have multiple meanings.

That text was added in Jan 2012, the +2 boots added Dec 2011, take up the terminology with Byrth. Hes still around I believe.

https://www.bg-wiki.com/index.php?title=Abs._Sollerets_%2B2&diff=prev&oldid=209182

Don't think anyone here is blaming the writer or want to tell them off. More debating how the wording can be improved to make it clearer.

When so many people have to think really hard to understand, that says it's probably time to revise the text.

One of the first responses to OP was basically chastising him for asking a question, which is what forums are for. Telling him the wiki answers his question when it's not plainly clear is not really answering his question at all. I am saying the wording on the wiki page is unclear to me as well, so his question about how the feet operate are valid. It makes no difference to me whether the wiki says it plainly or in a weird way because I can just go out and test it myself or already know how it works, but if players come to ffxiah.com to ask what the hell a slightly confusing statement (that at least 3 other people agreed is misleading) means, the last thing we should be doing is telling the guy to stop asking questions and go read the last 10-20 pages of the drk guide when the damn feet are from over a decade ago and wouldn't even be in those pages.

Sollerets/+1: “Reduces the defense penalty of Last Resort by 10%. Must remain equipped.”

Sollerets +2: “ Reduces the defense penalty of Last Resort by 10%.
Equipment can be removed and replaced to restore the bonus, unlike Abyss Sollerets and Abyss Sollerets +1.”

Idk its pretty clear to me that NQ/+1 must remain equipped to reduce the defense penalty, and that +2 can be swapped around to have the bonus (in this case bonus clearly means the enhancement to last resort that offsets the defense penalty) restored when theyre equipped.

Its tough being the smartest guy in the room :(

Yeah but the guy may be a recent returnee from like 2016 or something (he didn't even ask about the reforged piece and he asked about another outdated piece in another thread), what's clear to you might not be clear to him or others.

Nynja is trolling at this point. I won't be feeding it any longer.

Then fix the wiki

Once again
The snippit was added in 2012, a month after the piece was added to the game. Prior to that, for the previous 8 years of a 9 year old game, people had put to memory that the relic drk feet lose their bonus (offsetting the defense penalty) when they are removed and re-equipping wont restore it. You are thinking 2025, not 2012 when it was added.
Its the exact same text on war relic boots, which work the exact same way, except with berserk.

I think youre trolling, because the way the buffs are described are pretty clear.

But absolutely most importantly

You can literally hop on drk
Use last resort with the boots on, look at defense
Take boots off, look at defense
Put boots back on, and see if defense returns to original value or not
A five second test.

You can even do it in Rabao so you can quickly job change and see if the bonus can be retroactively added by using last resort without boots and then equipping them.

But yeah, im the one trolling, *** you

I thought the explanation could possibly be made more clear, but it is still definitely correct and logical.

The bonus is obviously the defense change, since that's what this description is under

An item being "removed and replaced" means removing the item and then replacing it.


If someone wants to re-word it, go for it. I think it's pretty clear to tell what it means if you read the words in the order they were written.

He also asked about the Desperate Blows augment bonus. That test doesn't satisfy that question.

I dont see that information on any page with the augment present, nor on the desperate blows page itself. Ergo, we go to the default: “must be worn on activation”

Now I know youre gonna bring up the thf gloves they just asked about. SA/TA mods kick in when the buff is used. I cant pump DEX, use SA, then swap to other things prior to the attack/WS. Similar to AC, WC, ESeal buffs, impact/HMar spells, these buffs must be equipped on use, not activation.

So you can get the +15 Subtle Blow (augment) bonus just from activating the JA with feet then removed, but the defense penalty portion needs to be worn fulltime to keep that bonus? That contradiction doesn't seem a little bit confusing?


I wasn't honestly. My point was that he asked a few questions rolled up into one in the correct place (the forums for discussion) and was immediately met with "wiki already answers your question" "go back and read the last 10 pages of drk guide" when wiki literally did not answer his questions. I'm not even worried about what is and isn't written on the wiki (though I am curious about the Desperate Blows part because I have never heard of those feet giving 15 subtle blow WITHOUT wearing them), all I'm saying is if someone comes here to ask a question on something that seems confusing to him, he shouldn't be criticized for it.

But don't you know? That's not how it works. Returning players aren't allowed to misunderstand anything, or come here to ask questions about things that may appear vague (to them), because they should be smart enough to read and comprehend properly, right?

That's how we do things around here. BGwiki can't possibly be any clearer on any of its pages, so how dare those people question how something is explained when they can just go in and change it, like anybody can go and change pages however they see fit (they can't). It's crazy this is even a discussion. They must be super dumb and need to go back to school to learn how to read. Let me be even more dismissive by telling everyone who has a question to do their own testing, so they don't have to ask here.