Enmity build up on untargetable bosses

[Lyrica_Ashtine]

Snip

I believe I've mentioned several times how it wasn't a problem with the old content with how White Mages work and how it isn't a problem now with how the content is. Please read more carefully. I've brought this to attention as it may present a much bigger issue for future content and/or future jobs. Even if it's not a serious problem now, it's more of a pain in the ass gimmick more than anything for everyone:
Healers take more damage than tanks, losing GCDs left and right till the tank re-establishes hate. Which can be one hit or several hits depending on the situation
Tanks lose output potential as they're forced to perform enmity combos over damage combos which they normally could without that transition
DPS lose positionals because the boss is spinning left and right

First of all, I do not consider paying normal costs for performing role actions a disadvantage. Healers are not in any way an exception as they continue to perform their role - healing - despite the boss being removed. That ASTs can perform similarly to a WHM but have a a greater difficulty to manage enmity is a problem inherent to AST design, not encounter design.

If not the healers being at a disadvantage, then tanks are at a disadvantage. If you consider "performing role actions" as "normal", then tanks performing enmity actions on the boss would be normal too. But they are unable to do so as the boss cannot be targeted or is invulnerable.

The quote you highlighted has nothing to do with the DPS focus the game has at the moment, or healer DPS.

I brought it up as it's something healers would do aside from just spamming that single button to keep the tank's HP bar up. Enmity buffer would only last for so many actions and someone else in the topic shared his/her experience in thordan EX. Said person also mentioned he/she was DPSing. That's one way to artificially lower your enmity for a phase. But why would good healers who can do both mending as well as maiming be punished for pushing their limits?

It's not much of a choice for a certain tank job either. Paladins pretty much have to repeat their Rage of Halone combo to build up enough enmity to last through the Ultimate End phase.

No it would not. That would be just terrible. I have never stated that "Sephiroth Dives" are desired.

But currently (as far as I can remember at least) only one encounter has this element. Just as it is possible that a future encounter may include such an element again, it is equally if not more likely that such an element won't be present considering what we've come across in the game so far. I personally can't advocate change based on such conjecture. The picture you paint regarding healers getting destroyed the moment a boss returns to fight is in my opinion misleading.

Although not as extreme as T9: https://youtu.be/4v4nmg-fsIs?t=14m15s

While there was time to Provoke, any form of action being taken before the next tank action has effect will outhate the effect of Provoke.
Then there's the thing that Square-Enix will have to consciously design content that doesn't open up with a hard hitting move. I believe there would be more coordination in preparing for the next phase by positioning properly. Rather than take a beating and try to recover.

I'll just repeat it once more, as you seem to keep ignoring this:
It wasn't a problem back then due to how Shroud works and still isn't a problem for White Mages
It isn't a serious problem now as current content doesn't open up a phase with heavy damage moves
It may be a problem later unless content is specifically designed to:
...have nothing that will utterly destroy someone upon phase change
...have short invulnerable/untargetable phases
...have sufficient amount of time to build enmity for the phase where they cannot for the duration of it
...make any tank/healer combination work (even if sub-optimal) if the duration of such phase is long

This issue doesn't only concern healers (except for White Mages, I guess) and there's no valid reason why this is a thing. If "management" and "ability" was really a thing, consider it from a tank perspective:
Certain adds spawn with initial enmity build on adds:
Oppressor and Oppressor 0.5
Living Limb appears with enmity build up on Living Liquid
Ser Janlenoux and Ser Adelphel appear with enmity already build up on King Thordan
Everyone builds up enmity on The Manipulator while attacking it's legs (or healing for healers)

If you consider A4(S), why can't this be a thing for other encounters?

[Eisenhower]

To preface, if you're going to quote, please consider actually including text other than "Snip" so I know what you're referring to.

[...][1] [Healers dying, tanks failing to be the main target, dps losing dps]
[...][2] tanks performing enmity actions on the boss would be normal too. But they are unable to do so as the boss cannot be targeted or is invulnerable.
[...][3] [Healers dealing damage, Thordan EX anecdote]
[...][4] Paladins pretty much have to repeat their Rage of Halone combo to build up enough enmity to last through the Ultimate End phase.
[...][5] [T13 video] While there was time to Provoke, any form of action being taken before the next tank action has effect will outhate the effect of Provoke.
[...][6] I'll just repeat it once more, as you seem to keep ignoring this:
[...][7] [Adds, bosses with pre-set enmity on spawn]

(1) Excuse my paraphrasing, but the described scenario appears to be easily solved by not panicking. The healers aren't killed outright and should move to the tank position. The tank is performing their role as usual and the DPS roles are losing a most likely trivial amount of damage.

(2) When the boss is displaced, the tank's role against the boss is effectively suspended. They cannot manipulate values against the boss in a meaningful way. Thus tanks should have ensured that enmity is sufficiently buffered, whilst considering their DPS and mitigation responsibilities. Healers on the other hand continue to function normally, their responsibilities and the costs for their actions should remain as normal.

(3) I will never argue against healers dealing damage. What is important to highlight is that in the anecdote the healer became the main target but wasn't killed outright after the phase change despite several strikes from the boss. This is in no way a healer being "punished for pushing their limits" as the tank got the boss back without deaths. If this happened every time and each time the healer died without neither the healing nor tank being able to do anything about it, then yes, it would be "punishing". Instead it shows that a tank can solve the enmity problem with their available tools and reacting on the spot.

(4) Paladins having trash enmity generation is a job-specific problem. I do not think that a wide-spread encounter design change is an appropriate response to it. With or without boss displacement phases a paladin will suffer in this regard.

(5) The DPS is clearly at fault. A tank cannot prepare the end of the enmity combo for that transition and enmity is visible to all combatants even when the boss is displaced. This is not hidden information and the DPS could have waited accordingly. A dead DPS deals no damage.

(6) Ignoring what? I've been replying to all points you've presented more than once with the argument that future encounters are still only conjecture on our part and arguing change on content that does not yet exist is something I don't support. If Squeenix does end up making encounters that are tailored to fuck with healers, then sure, that's terrible. But there's no evidence supporting that future any more than there is evidence against it. Adding to that, current content does not have encounters that in my opinion warrant such a change.

(7) I'm afraid I don't understand what you're getting at with the examples given, or what you mean by "If 'management' and 'ability' was really a thing". The adds (assuming Goblin Snipers) are a piece of the encounter puzzle and easily defused threats. Bosses with pre-set enmity appear with no displacement phase in-between. They could just as well appear with zero enmity and quickly end up in the same place with a Provoke and enmity combo. Even if a healer or DPS generated initial snap enmity, a small change to Provoke timing would probably fix that problem.

[Lyrica_Ashtine]

Snip

I included almost everything from your post by dissecting it later in the post. You could have at least realised/noticed that yourself.

Point 2, 3, and 4 would answer your point 6. You may consider it a conjecture, but past content proved otherwise. Content used in the past can and will recycle back into future content. King Thordan is the prime example of that. Void Ark and Crystal Tower to an extend when looking at Coil. Is it really that alien to you to consider the possible issues that may arise for future content jobs? Even so, why is this a thing? Is there even a valid reason that the whole enmity building while nothing can be done about it by simply doing your job? Tanks have to hold adds during the phase the boss is invulnerable, but cannot build enmity on the boss. DPS roles still have to kill adds, but this does not generate additional enmity on the boss. Healers have to keep the party in good shape throughout the phase, so why would they be the only ones who would build enmity by doing their job? Explain this: Why is this even a thing? Worst of all, why is this a thing for only specific jobs or group compositions?

The examples would point out that Square-Enix does have the scrips/techniques/functions available to alter enmity data on mobs, on both newly appearing and those already on the field based on existing enmity. You can build up enmity on the Manipulator through the legs in A4(S), for example. So why is this not a thing for King Thordan? If this was actually the case, then the whole "management" concept of it holds water. Otherwise there's no management involved for anyone if they can't do anything about it. You can only stack a certain amount of enmity and with it comes a drop in performance on tanks or drop in performance for healers if enmity becomes an issue due to the extremely long phase transition where nothing can be "managed" at all while performing your own role.

Sleigh mentioned something on page 1 that has gotten less attention and credit than it deserves:

...While I'm not a fan of clone abilities in general, I do think LA should just have an aggro dump instead of Quelling attached, because a dump is just plain better in 99% of situations, it's not about flavor or preference. Halving your total occasionally aggro just produces less total aggro than occasionally producing half aggro, you need only look at WHM's hideously low aggro in any fight by the 4-5 minute mark while an AST may be one of the highest.

One of the times I think copying a move is worth the boring view the player might have of it.

I don't think anyone is a big fan of jobs that's practically clones of each other. Look at the uproar the Astrologian "fix" created among the White Mages. While dumping enmity is the best way to deal with enmity in both short term as well as in the long run. Do we really want all healers have a Shroud of Saints copy? Or simply increase potencies on the tank enmity combo just so it works regardless of the group composition and encounter? These kind of "fixes" won't fix anything. It will just push the issues elsewhere.

[Eisenhower]

Why make a "Snip" quote if you're going to refer to each section of the post in detail again later in the same reply? It seems... superfluous. And there is no need to be condescending. But I digress, it appears the key point of our disagreement on this topic is that you consider the party to be still fully engaged to the boss when it is displaced, whilst I do not.

[...][1] You may consider it a conjecture, but past content proved otherwise.
[...][2] Healers have to keep the party in good shape throughout the phase, so why would they be the only ones who would build enmity by doing their job? Explain this: Why is this even a thing?
[...][3] Otherwise there's no management involved for anyone if they can't do anything about it. You can only stack a certain amount of enmity and with it comes a drop in performance on tanks or drop in performance for healers if enmity becomes an issue [...]
[...][4]I don't think anyone is a big fan of jobs that's practically clones of each other.

(1) Existing content do show that mechanics are recycled. It also shows that certain mechanics have not resurfaced yet, among which the "Sephiroth Dive" which is one of the key troubles you highlighted. Although we are not at fault in any way for speculating, all current data point towards that mechanic not resurfacing, and with that the notion of mechanics tailored to "punish" healers diminish greatly (be they current or future).

(2) I mentioned this in point 2 previously. Observe the image below. When the boss is displaced, interactions labelled ① cease along with the capacity to manipulate enmity directly via abilities such as Provoke. However, the interactions labelled ② function unhindered and from that I argue that the entirety of that interaction should remain - i.e. a healer still interacts with a displaced enemy, and what responsibilities may come from it. (Technically, ninjas also play a small and indirect part should they want to.)

When a boss displacement phase introduce additional enemies, the image applies separately for each present enemy, allowing full interaction between the Tank/DPS and the paired enemy. That some enemies can cause enmity build-up in fellow enemies according to certain rules may very well fall under encounter specific mechanics.

(3) I'd like to point out that there is a way for players to manage enmity even in displacement phases. The tools are few (or actually singular now that I think about it) and have a limited impact, but to claim that no management exist is simply false.

Moving on, am I correct in inferring that from your statement you consider tank performance to be more strongly dependent on their damage dealt, rather than their ability to keep enmity and mitigate damage? Assuming that is the claim, isn't it more reasonable that a tanks performance should be gauged on their ability to balance damage dealt with enmity generated? (After all, the tanking/raiding meta may change) If damage dealt becomes their main metric of performance, aren't they effectively a DPS class?

(4) It is plain to see that some jobs are not as well put together as others, both in terms of how well each individual piece of the toolkit performs as well synergy between these pieces and in comparison to other jobs' equivalent tools. I too dislike the level job homogenization present in XIV and though ASTs would most likely enjoy a Shroud clone rather than a Quelling clone when it comes to enmity management I think the best would be a more unique ability designed with consideration to what and how the job performs.

Coming from that, I get the feeling that the actual issue at hand is that ASTs (among others) has poor internal synergy which symptoms manifest in certain encounters? Wouldn't it be better to correct the function of astrologians rather than change encounter mechanics and enmity feedback? It would retain a layer of gameplay considerations and provide the tools to solve the challenges presented by that layer. For example (and a poorly constructed ones, I suspect), working from the assumption that "Sephiroth Dives" will not reappear, but displacement enmity is a thing:

LA's duration is much longer and refresh potency is lowered to achieve the same overall mana return. OR
LA now instead reverses enmity generation when active. OR
LA instead halves current enmity but returning it over a period of time.

The point is, there are ways to address these topics without simplifying the game.

[Tranquil]

The point is, there are ways to address these topics without simplifying the game.

So, are you in essence saying that the way the current enmity feedback works and having to work around it is somehow more "complex" (less simplified) than having no enmity generated during invulnerability phases would be? Cause, the way I see it, it is in fact the exact opposite. If you have to work around enmity, it means that you could have to either limit healer throughput (if you run with an AST), or overkill an encounter's aggro ceiling just to have a long invulnerability phase in mind. The way that works out is healers would more or less minimize their actions per minute and getting by with minimal overhealing/damage, and/or having the tanks permanently sit in their tanking stance and doing their enmity combos more. Which directly results in a DPS loss, playing finesse loss or a "fun loss", you name it. And yes, that is still assuming a tank does their primary job well enough and doesn't faceroll with the mitigational needs etc. (Subjective claim here, I know, but I am pretty confident in saying a majority would find it boring to 123123123 spam MT again without any worry in the world, rather than minmaxing damage with a calculated aggro lead and keeping the mitigational needs in mind).

So the options are pretty much: 1) Running dual WAR or having a perma-MT WAR (only tank which has its enmity combo be its highest potency combo, so even Deliverance tanking doesn't put the MT in a bad shape). 2) Not running AST with how gimp its enmity management is assuming you need to push for throughput and DPS, so just bring your WHM and call it a day. 3) Changing up how LA works (as suggested). 4) Keeping things as is and limiting the amount of throughput of the relevant jobs for the sake of overkilling the aggro ceiling. 5) Actually changing up the way the enmity response works and not having healers generate aggro on invulnerable mobs.

#1 can work, #2 can work but having an unviable job is never fun, #3 is a bandaid fix but homogenization is pretty unfun. So what that leaves us with is #4, which would exactly add what to our gameplay? Whether the raiding meta changes to be less DPS-centric again is another thing, but we no longer have a default-MT PLD with its 1 combo that doubledips for both the highest DPS combo and the enmity combo (as was the case in the T9 days). What does this mean? Lower aggro ceilings. I don't see what keeping this as is for the sake of keeping it adds to the gameplay from a skill perspective. Pop your LA with a little bit more caution (assuming one didn't do so already), limit your actions to the bare minimum to minimize enmity, and maybe have your co-healer cover up for you more. Couple that by having your tank turtle it up for more aggro if need be. Yeah, pretty sure a WHM would be brought at this point for ease of minmax, if LA didn't get changed.

Which finally leaves us with #5: changing how the enmity response works. So I ask of you, what exactly is the argument against this? Apart from the fact we're "used to" it being like it is now. What dimension of skillful gameplay gets taken out the moment they change this up? You still need to manage your resources (enmity included) in normal phases of a fight, as with everyone else, but you are now not punished for pushing your job to its limits, or alternatively, not punishing your tank for doing the same. Yes, this assumes the raiding meta stays more or less DPS-centric, but even if it didn't, people would still minmax their damage output.

[Eisenhower]

[1] So, are you in essence saying that the way the current enmity feedback works and having to work around it is somehow more "complex" (less simplified) than having no enmity generated during invulnerability phases would be?
[...][2] #3 is a bandaid fix but homogenization is pretty unfun. So what that leaves us with is #4, which would exactly add what to our gameplay?
[...][3] Which finally leaves us with #5: changing how the enmity response works. So I ask of you, what exactly is the argument against this? What dimension of skillful gameplay gets taken out[?]

(1) Yes, having healers generate enmity during boss displacement and having to deal with it is more complex than pausing everything in terms of player-enemy relations until the boss has returned. Provided that the boss does not instantly and unavoidably kill its main target upon return, player options expand to returning the boss to a tank (which is on the players' side mechanically almost identical to a tank swap) and protecting the healer until that can happen. Is this not a test of skill and co-ordination?

Having the healer top the enmity list during displacement phases is not an automatic fail state and does not inherently lead to a DPS loss on the tank's part. A tank can maintain the same DPS/enmity balance, have a smaller enmity buffer, use Provoke to take the boss back after phase transitions and end up in a position where they have even a bigger enmity lead as compared to the DPS classes due to the healer generating enmity when the DPS jobs cannot. If the tank then decides to forego enmity for the sake of DPS, then that is their prerogative and their problem to solve.

(2) A change to LA (or any other skill for any job) need not result in copying the mechanics from another job and assuming that homogenization is the only outcome seem pessimistic. I am confident there are changes that can be made to abilities that result in better job identity whilst providing a satisfying tool to use.

(3) I do not think that game complexity at this level should be reduced for the sake of convenience. I argue that it is more appropriate to either give jobs tools to (such as adding/changing abilities), or provide encounter mechanics manipulate enmity. If the latter is to introduce enemies or other mechanics that affect the displaced enemies' enmity, then that is more desirable than pausing healer enmity generation (though I personally don't think that should be a pervasive mechanic).

How is a healer currently punished for also dealing damage? Each action has a cost, it is the players' task to decide whether or not they wish to pay that cost, be it additional enmity, less mana to use for healing or an increase in risk of an ally dying. It is the same balancing act that tanks walk regarding enmity/DPS and DPS jobs do when they want to risk taking damage (or other detrimental effects) in order to have greater uptime. To be able to heal without paying in enmity requires less skill on the healers' part, just as pausing enmity during boss displacement removes situations where the tank and healers need to react to danger when the boss returns.

[Tranquil]

(1) You would really argue that to be the case, if it comes at the cost of mid-fight (in-phase) easiness? Having to cater to enmity some extra is in direct correlation with adjusting one's gameplay to be more streamlined, assuming you don't run a WHM/SCH combo. Ergo, while you can argue that having to pay attention to one's enmity in invulnerability phases requires "skill", it is more than offset from the fact the gameplay leading up to that moment will have been less thrilling. Please keep in mind, we're arguing about this with mostly the AST in mind. Enmity management is already faceroll easy on a WHM/SCH. By the time a fight is 2 Shrouds into its duration, a WHM will at worst be hovering in the yellow. Whether we make specific arrangements when running a WHM/SCH combo, does not matter because even with throughput maximization in mind (high tank DPS/healer DPS) - tragedies with enmity should not happen. Yes, you have the "Sephiroth Dive" mentioned in this thread, but let's keep this conversation to situations wherein mistakes are not obviously being made (Shroud omission etc.).

Whether you make changes into the enmity feedback during invulnerability phases will make WHMs and SCHs go from having an easy time to...having an easy time. There is literally little to no risk in fucking up as it is. We're mostly arguing about this with the AST in mind. Therefore, if the other jobs go from having no change (tanks/DPS) to having no impactful change in gameplay from changing this up (WHM/SCH) - barring the AST who would have a (rightfully) easier time with their enmity - where does the problem lie in? The only change that would occur is that AST's LA wouldn't need to be changed, and it would retain its unique Quelling Strikes-like aspect, whilst not affecting anything else negatively. WHM and SCH aggro is inconsequential 4-5 minutes into the fight, therefore changing the enmity feedback and how it functions would barely make any change, except to comps who are trying to minmax everything with a comp that has an AST in it (tank and healer DPS included, with a lower aggro ceiling).

(2) Okay, fair enough, but if they do change this up, no change in LA needs to be made and the impact to other jobs' gameplay will be inconsequential.

(3) Again, you are claiming that complexity is being reduced in making this change. I still maintain it is the opposite. Being "aggro-aware" is one thing, and the work-around to that is streamlining one's gameplay: more enmity, less healer enmity. Sure, this requires co-ordination and skill, but way less than what would be required of people who try to "multitask" on their job on top of their primary job (that is, minmaxing tank DPS with a lower aggro ceiling as a result, and also chipping in as much healer off-DPS as possible). And as I have said before: this already is a non-issue with WHM/SCH comps due to how powerful Shroud is and how SCH is, well, SCH, even if you were to minmax tank and healer DPS to the utmost limits - therefore no impactful changes in reducing the skillcap of these jobs would result in changing up the enmity response. The only change it makes is enabling AST-comps maximize their healer and tank throughput, without otherwise cheesing things.

The other option is indeed to change up LA, but given the aforementioned, should it be necessary?

Finally, healers being "punished" for dealing damage was in reference to maximizing healer throughput in compositions with an AST in it - wherein if you don't want to get gimped by enmity-related issues, the options are in creating a higher aggro ceiling than what you would with WHM/SCH comps (tank DPS loss), or alternatively, having healers generate less enmity. The latter has to do with cutting down off-DPS, as an example, hence it was mentioned. (Although it could also mean more evenly distributed healing between two healers etc).

[Eisenhower]

[...] Please keep in mind, we're arguing about this with mostly the AST in mind.

Let us then assume for a moment that XIV has the AST as the sole healer job, that tanks always stay in DPS stance (and always survive because magic ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) and that healers deal as much damage as possible whilst timing their LA impeccably. What the DPS do is largely inconsequential for this line of speculation.

In this scenario going into a displacement phase has no significant bearing on pre-displacement behaviour. Tanks need not make special concessions with regards to healer enmity as long as they can stay a single point of enmity ahead (which they should be anyway). Once the group leaves the displacement phase, the main tank can Provoke and keep going as normal. The amount of attention and behavioural changes needed is minimal as long as both parties are aware of what commonly happens and what needs to be done to address this. A buffer only becomes relevant if you want to keep the tank ahead of the healer for the displacement phase as well.

Now, let's return to the actual XIV. If WHM/SCH enmity is trivial and AST is the only one struggling with managing the enmity they generate through performing their role (and/or performing extra tasks), I argue that it is more reasonable to change AST.

Consider a hypothetical future piece of content where a mechanic forces healers to (without help) somehow manage their enmity below a certain level or similar within a time span or before a certain point, the WHM and SCH would likely be able to solve this as per how "[enmity] already is a non-issue with WHM/SCH comps due to how powerful Shroud is and how SCH is, well, SCH, even if you were to minmax tank and healer DPS to the utmost limits". But the AST with their current version of LA and other tools cannot overcome this hurdle, since the changes were made to displacement phase enmity and not to the AST.

From that, we either end up having to change AST and in a sense make the displacement phase change superfluous or play a game where such mechanics have no place because of the inherent weakness of AST. The latter is a bad place to be in my eyes. I'd rather have a game where different types of encounters are possible both to implement and to overcome due to well-designed jobs for the players to wield than a game where such things are off-limits for the sake of enjoying convenience at a prior point.

[Tranquil]

I don't have any qualms with the speculation in the post above, except for a part of the first half of the post - I am not sure why we would need to resort to that (Provoking post-displacement), whereas the outcome wouldn't be any different for the most part if invulnerability phases didn't build up enmity, except the Provoke-way to go at it feels like "bad form". That is, up until the moment we get another T9, which we might or might not get. Since we're speculating with "mays and may nots" in mind, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't really go the proposed route in the OP instead. But hey, I am not entirely opposed to changing up how the AST's LA works either, but I just see it as a second-tier fix. (Besides, to me it sounds like you honestly ignore some mays and may nots, whilst speculating the possibility of others).

As far as the speculation in your latter part of the post goes - that is some really heavy speculation, but I am not saying it is impossible. However, going that far to speculate "what ifs" is not really what's the most close to being relevant, because recycling older pre-existing mechanics, gimmicks and ideas and how things work within an encounter context seems more likely to me, with the issue with AST rising up again.

All in all I don't think it's gonna be on-topic if we speculate onwards from here. I still maintain what I wrote in my post, but won't say no to a "fix" to LA, as boring as it would be to do it that way. I am not opposed to new gimmicks and mechanics either.

[Lyrica_Ashtine]

The point is, there are ways to address these topics without simplifying the game.

I do hope you realise you're not even in line with yourself here. Not addressing this would involve:
Tanks spamming the enmity combo over and over
Healers still need to heal a certain amount throughout the fight. The only way to avoid additional enmity is to just sit there like a sack of potatoes and not DPS.
The moment a job gets issue with this would require retooling

Spamming 123 over and over for the enmity combo seems even more simplified. Or healers not DPSing to avoid enmity makes it a simple press-1-to-heal job. If anything that would make it oversimplified, it would be this kind of practice. Or would we have to resort to what you suggest; Retooling? whenever a tank or healer - or just healers specifically - would have problems concerning enmity, Square-Enix would simply need to retool their kit? I believe this is far worse practice than what you're trying to sell:

From that, we either end up having to change AST and in a sense make the displacement phase change superfluous or play a game where such mechanics have no place because of the inherent weakness of AST. The latter is a bad place to be in my eyes.

Let's say Scholars are the ones next who will have enmity issues, simply retool their Aetherflow as you propose? Or if a certain tank has trouble keeping enmity on any healer due to the phase, simply retool the tank? Constantly retooling everything won't solve anything in the long run. Square-Enix will simply reiterate this whole endeavor over and over while removing this whole "displacement-but-you-still-build-enmity" gimmick is solved once and for all for any role and any encounter. Is it that hard to understand how nearsighted your idea is to simply retool jobs over and over? Astrologians are the one in the spotlight concerning this gimmick, with Paladins somewhere in the background. So what if a new tank/healer is introduced in the next expansion - With every current healer already retooled - and run into this trouble again? Retool them all over again till all the healers are practically clones of each other on the enmity board?