Stoneskin II

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zarzak

I'm not sure what these loads of times are you speak of. Unless you think you need stoneskin to do outdated content.

Should they have gotten it? Sure it makes sense. But saying its necessary is a gross overstatement.

---

Can you please read the whole thread before responding? :/ I've already said many times that I know it's not necessary. Your response doesn't even match what this thread is about. Following your logic, should WHMs have gotten SSII? It's not exactly necessary.

Jesus, everyone is angry over a small request. Giving SCH the ability to AoE stone skin won't imbalance a damn thing. It is not uncommon to have 2 SCH, and there's easily a 50% chance of getting a SCH in 4 man content. Its literally wanted for the same reason WHM wanted it: to speed things up between pulls a little bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SulwynCaliope

Can you please read the whole thread before responding? :/ I've already said many times that I know it's not necessary. Your response doesn't even match what this thread is about. Following your logic, should WHMs have gotten SSII? It's not exactly necessary.

---

Necessary, no. However in White Mage's case it both makes sense AND serves a utility purpose. WHM stoneskin, as you've rightly noted is 18% which is not an insignificant amount of damage reduction. Thus, having it on WHM both saves time AND serves a useful purpose.

Scholar getting Stoneskin II would be silly. Firstly, Scholar doesn't even get SS1 by default, they have to cross-class it. Having tier 2 of a spell they don't even get tier 1 of is just ridiculous. Secondly, the measly offerings gained by a 10% stoneskin you can only cat outside of combat don't justify wasting a cross class slot on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemuria

... don't justify wasting a cross class slot on it.

---

There are countless useless cross class skills. Stoneskin II would surely beat Blizzard II, and make just as much sense. Change the 18% to 10% and the rest of your first paragraph can remain the same in SCH's case - it saves time and serves a purpose.
Your arguments against SCH receiving Stoneskin II are pretty weak and invalidated entirely by some of the already available crossclass skills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riepah

There are countless useless cross class skills. Stoneskin II would surely beat Blizzard II, and make just as much sense. Change the 18% to 10% and the rest of your first paragraph can remain the same in SCH's case - it saves time and serves a purpose.
Your arguments against SCH receiving Stoneskin II are pretty weak and invalidated entirely by some of the already available crossclass skills.

---

Talking about useless cross-class abilities, how about Truth of Mountains? Why would DoM or DoW ever need this? LOL

Too many people missing the point of this thread.

The game isn't entirely FCoB and 4-man dungeons. Sometimes you get into DF SCoB turns, or DF EX Primals, where you have 2 Scholars. Sure you can clear them without giving prior untraited Stoneskin to the whole team. But Stoneskin II in and of itself is a QoL change. Stuff like this hardly ever "breaks" the game, nor take away from WHM's battle capabilities. Stuff like this hardly hurts anyone from having it - better to have untraited Stoneskin pre-pull, than to have nothing at all.

I also think it should not take a cross-class skill slot. I think the best way this should have been implemented is to have different behaviours inside and outside of battle - it grants Stoneskin to the entire party in one click outside of battle, but in battle, you have to pick who gets it. One quick change, not affecting traits or ability to cross-class that skill to SCH.

Also, hi Sully!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemuria

snip

---

If SE had implemented this right in the first place, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The AoE function should have been a passive whereby you'd cast AoE SS out of battle and single target SS in battle. Unfortunately, SE messed up big time and didn't do this.

I mentioned before that SS stacks with succor. SS + Succor combo mitigates a good amount of damage too. If my succor were to crit, on a 10k HP warrior, I could mitigate the same 18% damage that the WHM SS mitigates. Mitigation is mitigation and I'm not going to say no to any mitigation that I can get my hands on. After all, SCH's bread and butter is damage mitigation.

Also, it seems your issue is with how SSII was labeled the skill. If SE had labelled it, something other than SSII could I have it then? Also I just checked and I can cross class blizzard II on my SCH. I guess SE should take it away and give us blizz I.

OP, if it's not necessary, then why are you still asking for it? Why all the fuss? Why the mentality of w/e whm gets, sch should get too?

Why the mentality of "the game is perfect as it is stop saying it's not perfect, oh wait I guess now they implemented a heavily requested feature, ok now for reals it is actually perfect exactly the way it is despite not being that way before, now stop saying it's not perfect again"?. It's the same mentality that, thankfully, got ignored and still got us an AoE Stoneskin despite people saying not having one was perfectly fine and the game didn't need one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bebekurenai

OP, if it's not necessary, then why are you still asking for it? Why all the fuss? Why the mentality of w/e whm gets, sch should get too?

---

Why did WHMs ask for it? Because it made their lives easier and not because they needed it. Maybe they shouldn't have made a fuss over it till SE caved? The issue is that SE gave SCHs access to Stoneskin. We use it as extra mitigation before the fight even begins. Why should SE give WHMs only an extra, non game breaking, QoL change when SCHs are using the skill in the exact same way for the exact same purpose. I don't think that SCHs should get everything a WHM gets. If I wanted WHM toys, I'd play a WHM and not SCH. What I'm asking for here is a QUALITY OF LIFE change. I don't know why some people can't understand the concept of QUALITY OF LIFE.