Stoneskin for Scholars, is it necessary?

[Akary]

not necessary but is a nice perk if i use it in a fight its usually casted with swiftcast + stoneskin followed up by aldolium

[Euphe]

I'd say YES definitely get Stoneskin. WHM gets a buff to SS which increases it to 18% max HP while SCH only gets the base 10%. However, this is only an 8% difference so it's completely over-lookable IMO. Look at it this way. You have a WAR who has roughly 6,000HP so that's an additional 600HP+ for SS alone. Couple that with your Adlo (let's say... 600 heal = 600 shield); that's a woping 1,200HP+ (technically speaking). As a SCH SS will only help to bolster your shields and since you will have better MP management than your WHM brethren you'd be silly not to use SS to its fullest extent! Honestly this ability is just as important to have in your arsenal as Swiftcast is. I just ask that if your are going to go heals full time that you dedicate yourself to the cause and get all of the X-class skills available to you. It will make your job easier and make your team safer. That's what healing is in essence after all...

[ColdestHeaven]

Stoneskin? Yeah. I mean, the only scenario where Adloquium is better than Stoneskin is BEFORE pulls. Because it lasts longer. Then right before the pull you use Succor+Adloquium. That is, if there is no WHM around - as many in the thread pointed out. Stoneskin scales with the tanks' equipment, whereas Adloquium scales with your equipment - meaning if you are going to gear your SCH (and you definitely are, aren't ya?), Stoneskin will become less and less useful. But it's a tool used for mitigation, much like every skill at your disposal (even DPS stuff has some effect like Blind), so I wouldn't really put it out of my hotbar. Since in real 8man content it currently is hard solo healing/tanking (Coil), you'll probably be on your own and the other healer will be taking care of the other tank/the rest of the party.

Throwing an Adloquium and a Stoneskin in a moment of 'peace' (example: transition of waves in T4) will prepare both you and the tank for the coming attacks, more than just Adloquium. It is not entirely useless. Considering I use Swiftcast, Cleric stance, Surecast (still need to know how to use it wisely) and Protect, the only things left are Aero (good for DPS, too bad since I'm focused on healing), Stoneskin (why the hell not?), Blizzard 2 (good for DPS - in turn 4. Nope. Healing.), Raise, Cure (WHYDOIEVENHAVETHOSE*tableflip*)...well, I'd rather learn how to throw one more mitigation tool. Especially since Infirmity mechanics (Hydra/Twintania) do not affect Stoneskin - which is REALLY valuable to remember. This exactly is what allowed me to pass Hydra during my Relic Reborn questchain for my WHM with an extremely undergeared and not-really-bent-on-dodging tank. Yeah, with a traited Stoneskin - but you get my point. I wouldn't say no to more mitigation as a Scholar. Never.

[Mirakumi]

I use stoneskin in situations like turn 5. just in case whm is busy which happens. Get it off before death sentence ! Adol and gimp stoneskin to the rescue lol

[kayuwoody]

If you actually read my post in last page, Casting Adloqium + Stoneskin without using Swiftcast to catch a huge damaging skills (i.e Mountain Buster / Death Sentence) is nearly impossible. So what's the point?

And with the situation you provided, usually SCHs are the one who topped up tanks which leaves WHM assisting for a bit Heal and focusing on AoE / Stoneskin.

You aren't meant to cast both adlo and stoneskin by yourself. There's 2 healers. You're one of them. If you aren't casting adlo, then you're casting stoneskin. Clear enough? The other guy isn't always a WHM, and even if he was, sometimes it makes more sense for him to be healing instead of you, in which case you'd normally be using adlo, unless he's already topped up and shielded, then you'd wanna use stoneskin. If you don't even have stoneskin, well..

Thought I could clarify with an example: Ifrit Extreme. Say your healing partner's a WHM. There's times when Ifrit will do almost no damage to tanks (notably when he's firing searing at a healer / doing eruptions) and you'll already have the tank topped off and shielded. During the nails phase with the WHM in the middle casting Medica, and you're there sitting on the side twiddling your thumbs with the Searing debuff, unable to stoneskin your tank And guess what follows shortly? Incinerates, that stoneskins are very nice to have for.

There's a lot of uses really. Say someone has the weakness debuff. While there are two healers, the other healer isn't always free, while you just might be (see above Ifrit example, for example!)

In T4 I always stoneskin people up before a phase change when I get the chance. You're usually assigned to one tank as primary, so when your tank isn't taking damage, take the time to shield and stoneskin.

[Gilcris]

From an actual bottomline effectiveness perspective, Stoneskin is not necessary. It's "kinda cute" at best and anyone who says otherwise is just trying to justify the fact that they spent the time leveling WHM. You certainly have more impactful spells that you can be casting at any given time during combat and again, 10% Stoneskinning everyone before combat has never been the difference between victory and defeat for anyone. It's something that people do because it makes them feel like they've done something.

[kayuwoody]

From an actual bottomline effectiveness perspective, Stoneskin is not necessary. It's "kinda cute" at best and anyone who says otherwise is just trying to justify the fact that they spent the time leveling WHM. You certainly have more impactful spells that you can be casting at any given time during combat and again, 10% Stoneskinning everyone before combat has never been the difference between victory and defeat for anyone. It's something that people do because it makes them feel like they've done something.

Dude by that reasoning not many spells are "necessary". You could just cast only pys adlo and lustrate and heal through most encounters fine.

[XNihili]

From an actual bottomline effectiveness perspective, Stoneskin is not necessary. It's "kinda cute" at best and anyone who says otherwise is just trying to justify the fact that they spent the time leveling WHM. You certainly have more impactful spells that you can be casting at any given time during combat and again, 10% Stoneskinning everyone before combat has never been the difference between victory and defeat for anyone. It's something that people do because it makes them feel like they've done something.

Indeed. And if you can get away without stoneskin, you should be able to get away without swiftcast. What's the point, you have Lustrate right ?

[Gilcris]

Dude by that reasoning not many spells are "necessary". You could just cast only pys adlo and lustrate and heal through most encounters fine.

And the topic of the thread was "Is Stoneskin necessary for Scholars?" You just confirmed it is not. The most anyone could say on its behalf is that they find it "kinda" useful "occasionally". That's far from the nature of necessary.

[Gilcris]

Indeed. And if you can get away without stoneskin, you should be able to get away without swiftcast. What's the point, you have Lustrate right ?

Are either necessary? For most content, you can probably get by without... But with that said, the difference is that Swiftcast is a versatile ability that most people would consider "Must Have" and could turn the tide of any battle in which a person makes a mistake (or we make a mistake letting a faerie die), whereas SCH Stoneskin is an ability that will never mean the difference between success or failure.