So with all of this consolidation Why do we still have 4 different Fires?

[Felis]

fire I , single, fire II aoe, Fire III , single, is that is confusing.

aoe should have the ga, ra, etc

This is only in the english localisation

Feuer - ファイア : single
Feura - ファイラ : AoE
Feuga - ファイガ : single and give you max astral fire
Feuka - ファイジャ : single that need enochial and astral fire

[Ferth]

Thank you to those people who understood the reasoning for this post, to the majority of the rest of the comments, like really? I guess 1+1=3 doesn't it.

There are strategic reasons to not use fire 3 at every opportunity or right when a proc happens.

It seems a bit unfair that you ask a question you know the answer to and then tell people the answer that you already acknowledge as being the answer can't be the answer we give.

The problem with BLM in Heavensward was not an overabundance of abilities. It was too many restrictive timers to keep track of. Keeping Enochian on long enough for the natural recast to refresh takes an ability to juggle a lot of timers in your head, especially if a fight requires any movement that is not going to be expected and planned for 100% of the time. This created a large gap in ability for the players who were capable of this and the players who weren't. The changes to BLM in Stormblood are in keeping with the mindset of reducing the things you need to keep track of in hopes of raising the minimum an average player can do.

I suppose you could argue that reducing the number of fire spells would do that, but it wouldn't make the job easier unless it was also accompanied with the Enochian changes.

You say "Don't say they do different things!" But that is exactly what they do. For whm Stone 2 is a direct functional upgrade from Stone 1. Once you have 2 there is no reason whatsoever to use one. Ergo replacing 1 with 2 at the appropriate level makes sense.

Fire 2 is a functionally different spell than Fire 1. Replacing Fire 1 with Fire 2 would make no sense unless they change the function of Fire 2. Then what? Add a new spell to fill the function gap you just created? Why? a misguided sense of semantics? It's extra work for no purpose.

But hey, why not replace Fire 1 with Fire 3? Again, they serve different functions, not even considering the different resource costs or potencies they both react differently with core BLM mechanics, Fire 1 gives you one stack of astral fire or removes all stacks of umbral ice. Fire 3 removes all stacks of umbral ice if you have them AND gives you THREE stacks of astral fire. So unless they want to change core mechanics or add more abilities to accommodate this pointless change there is no reason to replace 1 with 3.

Let's jump over to SMN since it is seeing some sweeping changes to core abilities. Right now they have three/four dots they can stack on an enemy all with different durations. They also have a fair amount of oGCD abilities they can use between spells and a low potency spell they can spam in between keeping dots up. To expand the abilities for this class they either need to keep adding dots, keep adding things to do between dots or change something else.

What they opted to do is reduce the number of dots to manage by 1, but give them increasing durations and overall potencies. And then also increase the potency of one of their filler spells to accommodate. Regardless of the salt that is readily available in SMN threads, the core mechanics of SMN haven't changed much from the current "apply dots, cast filler spells, reapply dots." It's just the dots will be slightly easier to manage and the filler spells have had some balancing tweaks done.

So you are asking why they aren't completely reworking all the BLM spells by either neutering BLM functionality or creating a bunch of new abilities to do what these abilities already do? I suppose I'd have to counter with why the heck would they?

[lyndwyrm]

While I get keeping some of them separate, I don't see why they didn't change:

Fire I > Fire IV while under Enochian and making Fire IV refresh AF. BLM already has MP costs that change, and this seems like a needless complication to keep around considering other changes. I'm really not sure the 1 maaaybe 2 fires that go off in a single rotation and the Firestarter proc that might come from them are reason enough to keep Fire I and Fire IV separate, and for that matter, to keep firestarter. Fire III would also be pretty easy to eliminate, if they made firestarter instead apply AF3 if fire was cast from UI3 and up the potency randomly as done with scathe. Then Fire would become Fire III at about 42, and Fire IV at 60.

Blizzard I > Blizzard III, At level 60 or 70, is there ever a time you will use blizzard I? I'm under the impression you might IF you got a thundercloud proc and don't want to overwrite a pretty fresh thunder, but other than that not so far as I can see.

[Shurrikhan]

If you look at Ruin Mastery it says, "Grants a 15% chance that Ruin and Ruin III are upgraded to Ruin IV after a pet uses spell or weaponskill." What stopped them from making Fire change to Fire III in the event you got a Firestarter proc?

I would have loved to have been able to say, "because there might be a reason to hold onto that proc!" Though, those reasons are far and few between, especially now that AF/UI have been extended yet again.

That said, changing it over during a Firestarter alone wouldn't actually save you a key. You still need F3 to enter immediately into AF3 after a UI phase. It would be like making the current Thunder I and II change into the III on Thundercloud. It would nullify the chance of mis-clicks, but it wouldn't save you any keys, since Thunder II and III still have separate rotational usage without the procs.

The real question ends up:

While I get keeping some of them separate, I don't see why they didn't change:

Fire > Fire IV (allowing IV to refresh AF)
Blizzard I > Blizzard III

To which I can only guess, "because they thought BLM would be too simple then?"

[Waliel]

If you look at Ruin Mastery it says, "Grants a 15% chance that Ruin and Ruin III are upgraded to Ruin IV after a pet uses spell or weaponskill." What stopped them from making Fire change to Fire III in the event you got a Firestarter proc?

Because you're casting normal F3 more often than using Firestarters.

To which I can only guess, "because they thought BLM would be too simple then?"

I doubt Squenix wants BLM to go back to being a "one button job". I wish Firestarter would proc off F4, though.

[Hasrat]

I'd favor renaming, but I don't like using -ga just for AoE. It's still not very clear that way. I'd rather stick with the old -ra -ga -ja for base spells, and AoE can have their own unique names. Firaga still sounds like just a better Fire spell. There's too little historical precedent for that format, when most older entries, most spells could be single/AoE as needed (but also most older entries typically required some strategy due to actual elemental resistance/absorption, etc).

Point is, give like spells like names. Fire/Firaga sorta sounds nice, but AoE still has "Fir(e)" in it. I'd rather see it have any other name. Blaze. Inferno. Explosion. Don't care. But make it clear as day that it has a different purpose.

[AlphaSonic]

Snip

Because if you merge them you already dumb down the class too much. I'd rather this game not become WoW that is only about pressing 1-1-1-1-1-1(proc)-2-3 and repeat. It would be boring.

[Valinis]

Because if you merge them you already dumb down the class too much. I'd rather this game not become WoW that is only about pressing 1-1-1-1-1-1(proc)-2-3 and repeat. It would be boring.

Proc based combat is a lot more fun than the 1-2-3, 1-2-3 spam that most DPS roles have currently in my opinion.

[AlphaSonic]

Proc based combat is a lot more fun than the 1-2-3, 1-2-3 spam that most DPS roles have currently in my opinion.

Well that's why you have WoW. If you like that kind of playstyle you can play WoW, I'd rather perform rotations that keep me busy while dealing mechanics.

[Valinis]

Well that's why you have WoW. If you like that kind of playstyle you can play WoW, I'd rather perform rotations that keep me busy while dealing mechanics.

What if I don't like the other aspects of WoW? You have an opinion and so do I. Don't tell me to leave just because you don't agree with me.