Considering that you have to have people literally standing on top of you for them to get healed and with such a large MP cost why would you even bother using Cure III?
Printable View
Considering that you have to have people literally standing on top of you for them to get healed and with such a large MP cost why would you even bother using Cure III?
Regen and cure are all you really need lol aswell as medica use those high mp cost moves are basically your oh the tank might die in another shot i need to heal him for alot ASAP moves like Benediction just stick to using the basic moves :)
Demon wall fight is the only time i can think of were you would even want to consider casting cure III as you will generally be stacked up anyway and when you have medica II hot effect already on people its a waste to recast the same spell so casting cure III then would be slightly more efficient.
Cure 3 is nice for Ifrit HM (stacking after hellfire) and Garuda HM (stacking during clones phase).
It's nice during times when you have to heal Melee, and you're not with them. Medica is around you, while Cure III is around the target. So if you're healing the tank, and the Melee have taken some damage throw out a Cure III. Otherwise if you're around everyone, Medica II followed by Medica spam would probably be better for AoE.
Cure III is actually more efficient than Medica I as long as you can get it to hit enough people. So really anytime it's practical to stack and heal; it's a better spell. It also is a hell of a lot more throughput for those "oh shit" moments.
You use Cure 3 when you don't want to risk endanger yourself.
Cure III range is 30y and 4y around the landing target.
Medica is 15y around u.
Medica2 is 20y around u.
I have to agree, Using Cure III seems to be very situational. However it seems that most times it's not efficient enough to bother using.
If you run with organized people, you can use it on clusters of players pretty efficiently.