Log in

View Full Version : Solving Spell Bloat: Spell pairing



Albel-Nokbel
09-08-2016, 12:37 PM
Red Mage have so many spells to maintain, chainspell and spontaneity have too long recasts to solve the issue and composure only reduces how often you as a Rdm have to deal with spell bloat. The spell bloat i'm talking about isn't so much having so many spells but having to cast so many spells individually that it eats into your blade swinging time.

If RDM was given a menu where they could pair spells and effectively create dual spells they could reduce the amount of time casting significantly. There would probably be some form of cost to do this like increased mp cost or heightened spell interuption rates to balance it out some. Probably a cap on the number of paired spells you can have as well. With limits like only spells with the same target settings can be paired and accession/manifestation being ignored or only the first spell gaining the benefite if applicable.

Rydal
09-08-2016, 10:52 PM
When are we casting more than a few spells during engaged combat? Most, if not all, of our buffing is done before we start fighting and they last so long that we shouldn't need to rebuff during a fight ever. Spells we should cast during combat is done before we draw our swords (Distract, Frazzle, Dia, Inundation) and they all last longer than the mob should live. I don't understand the situation you're describing because if I'm swinging my swords, I'm not casting nukes or enfeebles unless there's a MB coming up and if I'm buffing, I am usually not fighting mobs because the RDM buff list is long (although with capped FC it's not that long to get the important ones on).

If you're describing a solo with trusts situation (where you have to be engaged yourself to make the party fight so you can't pre-debuff mobs), then I don't see this as something that is extremely helpful. Seems more like a QoL change because it's annoying to debuff every mob while engaged but if the fights don't last that long, it brings up why debuff so much anyway?