I misunderstood. I thought you meant "remove damage types and replace it by giving everyone a cloned party buff" which would do anything for anybody except make drg not required....which was the same result as just deleting them.
But if your going to delete them and mete out new buffs vit deny them to certain classes, then it's just a new party buff.
What I dont get is if the aspect of the current system you dont like is the idea of drg getting special status because it helps ranged, then how does it make sense to give pld/drk a magic buff that competes with smn? Now you have just forced a different comp (pld/drk compete woth each other and smn). In that scenario, every group would take either pld ot drk since both wouldnt help. 2nd tank war. Magic dps wont be smn. By making them exclusive it devalues having more than one, the same way that 2 drgs arent better than 1 because you can only have 1 piercing debuff. A 2nd diesnt help and therefore makes the 2nd drg bring less than the 1st drg. In your example bringing a pld/drk/smn when you already had ANY of those already makes that job weaker and less desirable.
I thought the idea would be to make party comps more flexible, but mutually exclusive, identicle buffs will only do one thing. Reduce party flexibility because any duplication of the new skill is a detriment because it is a job function of 0 value for any additional jobs that have it. You are just replacing job specific buffs synergies that define comps (damage type buffs) with job specific dis-synergy that will also just define comps as each job only buffs other specific jobs and thus must be grouped. That's the same function I thought we were trying to avoid
