Why Can't WHM Have An Enmity Lowering Stance?

[Daranion]

You are missing the whole point Gemina. WHM just straight up CANNOT use their burst a the opening which is where they would inflict the most damage. It doesn't matter how hard I'm hitting even with shadewalker on me, I won't hold the boss when Velcan does his burst opener and I'm in Sword Oath. "just use shield oath" you may say, but that's not necessary if he plays SCH or AST. HE can go full blast on those while I'm in sword oath, but not in sword oath. How is that fair?

[Accelerating]

You are missing the whole point Gemina. WHM just straight up CANNOT use their burst a the opening which is where they would inflict the most damage. It doesn't matter how hard I'm hitting even with shadewalker on me, I won't hold the boss when Velcan does his burst opener and I'm in Sword Oath. "just use shield oath" you may say, but that's not necessary if he plays SCH or AST. HE can go full blast on those while I'm in sword oath, but not in sword oath. How is that fair?

Stop lying. Most DPS jobs have a higher burst than WHM.

[Rubiss]

Stop lying. Most DPS jobs have a higher burst than WHM.

Didn't you know? WHM has more burst than BLM.

[Velcan]

You guys are forgetting the fact that DPS have Quelling strikes which makes the burst enmity in the opener lower than WHM.

[Accelerating]

You guys are forgetting the fact that DPS have Quelling strikes which makes the burst enmity in the opener lower than WHM.

This thread is getting to a point where it's either an 10/10 false flag or just hilariously stupid.

[Daranion]

But he's absolutely right! A regen on the tnak ot prevent the need for heals and then going all out with DPS spell while the party boosts damage and using PoM, a WHM WILL rip aggro. Have you ever done a 3k opener as WHM with regen on? You'd know it's only possible to hold hate with a ninja smokescreening the WHM AND boosting the tank and even then it's manageable. The tank would have to go into tank stance without all that when it's just plain old not necessary with the other healers. WHM is just too damn bursty with no way to shed that hate outside of their shroud which only shines later in the fight. But for optimal openers? It's just not fair

[Pnyapa]

I like trains.

[Accelerating]

But he's absolutely right! A regen on the tnak ot prevent the need for heals and then going all out with DPS spell while the party boosts damage and using PoM, a WHM WILL rip aggro. Have you ever done a 3k opener as WHM with regen on? You'd know it's only possible to hold hate with a ninja smokescreening the WHM AND boosting the tank and even then it's manageable. The tank would have to go into tank stance without all that when it's just plain old not necessary with the other healers. WHM is just too damn bursty with no way to shed that hate outside of their shroud which only shines later in the fight. But for optimal openers? It's just not fair

Can you tell me this optimal WHM opener you're talking about? Also how fast is the WHM getting the aggro? Instantly? After 5 seconds? After 10?

[Neela]

snip

so at first... there is this never ending discussion if healers should dps or not... now we are on the point that whms shouldn't dps on pull (with reg, med2, stoneskin, and aoe ground heal to give themselves the timewindow to do so) cause the main tank has to be in tank stance (what is actual their job?!) to stand this amount of enmity?... Accelerating is just right:

This thread is getting to a point where it's either an 10/10 false flag or just hilariously stupid.

[Daranion]

You seem to be misunderstanding. I'm not saying the healer SHOULDN'T DPS. Quite the opposite. I'm saying that WHM get unfairly shafted in teams trying to push out as much damage as possible since either the WHM or the tank can go all out, This is a situation unique to the WHM and quite unfair. I know it's the tanks job to hold aggro, but if it's possible to be even better then you should. We're just trying to get some sort of solution for both the WHM AND the tank to enjoy a full powered opener, rather than one holding the other back