Stoneskin II

[Lemuria]

I call MAJOR BS on this

Yeah, my bad. I was referring to Adlo, not Succor. Point is, it's still a stronger version of Stoneskin in the long run and heals at the same time. Not sure why people are complaining about not having Stoneskin when Scholar basically has a better tool in their arsenal.

How can you use "waste of MP" as an argument when Stoneskin II is only usable out of combat? o_O

Would you prefer the term, "waste of time"? "Waste of effort"? It's effect is negligible in the long run in either case, so casting it on the party isn't worthwhile. I only ever stoneskin the tank in parties on Scholar as anything else isn't worth it. Cheaper just to cast the heals.

[SulwynCaliope]

Yeah, my bad. I was referring to Adlo, not Succor. Point is, it's still a stronger version of Stoneskin in the long run and heals at the same time. Not sure why people are complaining about not having Stoneskin when Scholar basically has a better tool in their arsenal.

Except no scholar is going to adlo every member of their party one by one because by the time you get to the bottom of your 8 man party list, your first adlo has either already worn off or is mere seconds away from wearing off.

[Lemuria]

Except no scholar is going to adlo every member of their party one by one because by the time you get to the bottom of your 8 man party list, your first adlo has either already worn off or is mere seconds away from wearing off.

You're so right. And you know why? Because it's unnecessary. You only cast it on non-tanks when they can benefit from the healing bonus as well. So, do explain why we need a 10% HP stoneskin effect for a paltry 500hp when even Succor can provide that much, and be usable in-combat.

[Remilia_Nightfall]

You're so right. And you know why? Because it's unnecessary. You only cast it on non-tanks when they can benefit from the healing bonus as well. So, do explain why we need a 10% HP stoneskin effect for a paltry 500hp when even Succor can provide that much, and be usable in-combat.

We don't "need" it, as WHM did not "need" it in the strict sense of the word. For the Xth time, it's a QoL thing for both WHM and SCH. It's not a "need" thing. it's no different than the change they made for food to last thru a wipe.

[SulwynCaliope]

You're so right. And you know why? Because it's unnecessary. You only cast it on non-tanks when they can benefit from the healing bonus as well. So, do explain why we need a 10% HP stoneskin effect for a paltry 500hp when even Succor can provide that much, and be usable in-combat.

How hard is it to understand that SS means in an instance, it buys me a little bit of extra DPS time before I have to actually heal that DPS that just took damage. I am confused as to your reluctance to give us this QUALITY OF LIFE change. Can you please give me a good sound reason that doesn't include "BECAUSE IT MAKES MY WHM FEEL SPESHUL". Wouldn't it, in fact, benefit the whole party without affecting the dynamics between classes when a WHM isn't present? Or can you not imagine a scenario where there isn't a WHM in the party?

Edit: Am I just banging my head against a wall here? How hard is QUALITY OF LIFE change to understand? It's not game breaking. It doesn't affect the balance between classes at all. I challenge any WHM to tell me how is does break this balance. So far I haven't seen any justification of this.

[Remilia_Nightfall]

Would you prefer the term, "waste of time"? "Waste of effort"? It's effect is negligible in the long run in either case, so casting it on the party isn't worthwhile. I only ever stoneskin the tank in parties on Scholar as anything else isn't worth it. Cheaper just to cast the heals.

I would prefer any term that is correct in a given circumstance.

This QoL spell would only be useful whenever a WHM is not around in a dungeon / raid. That's all. Of course, if a WHM is present, HE is the one who is going to do SS, not che SCH - that is pretty obvious - so don't worry, no one wants to steal your precious "Stoneskinning role".