Dear Healers who don't DPS

[Taika]

And that is why 'you' are an avid proponent of DPSing as healer - It's not coincidence.

No, it's because that's how the healer jobs are designed and work in this game. But yeah, that's not a coincidence. I tend to think that games and the classes in them should be played as they're designed (in multiplayer context where your team is expecting you to perform your role).

What I'm disgusted by is the sexist, stereotypical description of players of healer roles you wrote (without a hint of critical approach), in addition to the stereotype itself.

Edit: Yes, people have dreams about how they'd wish to play certain jobs. They'd want to be only healing on healer, or only singing on BRD, or an ice mage BLM. But those dreams are not how the jobs actually work, and no one is justifying following them on any other role but healer. No one is saying "I get it, you want to play a defensive PLD, it's ok, you shouldn't be asked to use anything but Flash and maybe some cooldowns every once in a while". This is (one of the reasons) why your "argument" about these "fantasies" makes no sense in the reality of this game.

[era1Ne]

Class quests teach you about playing your class. At the same time CNJs are learning about Sylphie and her "only healing" THMs are learning about rotating astral fire and umbral ice. Is that just a character's opinion? No, contextually it is clearly also meant to teach you about your job.

That is a cop out.

Would you care to respond to everything else I said? Because I had a whole other rebuttal that I see is still unopposed.

First of all you edited your post and added text if you look at the quotes. So don't talk about cop out, when you added text later on. Thx.

This was the text i quoted:

Also I'm not talking about MSQ instances I'm talking about healer quest instanced battles. You kill things in them. Hell, lots of the time there is an NPC responsible for healing you!

Ends with "!". And this is text now...

Also I'm not talking about MSQ instances I'm talking about healer quest instanced battles. You kill things in them. Hell, lots of the time there is an NPC responsible for healing you while you deal out the vast majority of damage. Why did they do that if they could have just had you cast Cure every 20 seconds?

Missing an "!" and more text.

Imo the jobquest never teached you anything really and rather introduced you to some of the skills you got and the lore behind the classes. But they never teached you an opener, an rotation or optimal play. Most importantly those quest never told you how you should play. Square Enix imo is very hesitate to tell people how they should play for better or worse and with the hall of novice they just cover the very basics (avoid aoe, watch out for your group) and then they give an hint or an suggestion if you want in the second tutorial to do dmg, but never outright say "you MUST DPS as healer or you are an disgrace for your party". They literally only said "even when it's save to attack, always keep one eye on your allies". As for the Conjurer jobquest in the level 15 quest he states what the problem with sylphie is and without spoiling the issue it is not her just healing. Search on youtube for an video to know more.

Edit: In my opinion you can't use quest, since they are lore and story driven and the novice arena just teaches the very, very basics and not what is considered optimal. I say it again, i want healers to try to dps. Maybe not in the first two dungeons as an healer, but when they feel save to do so. I dislike people not even trying dmg for unreasonable reasons like "But in an other game, the healer only heals and thats what i will do here!!!", because this game is different and everyone should try their best, even if they are not good at it. I think we can all agree on that. At the same time some arguments are just badly choosen in my opinion from either side and using what an npc said for instance is one of them.

[Tridus]

It's not the majority that has a problem with this.

[Citation Needed]

Nobody knows what the "majority" thinks. The majority aren't here. Nobody has met enough of them to do an accurate survey. And basing it on "well I haven't seen anyone complain in DF" is just silly. I haven't seen anyone complain when some fool thinks Pyretic on O4N means "DPS more" either. That doesn't mean people are okay with it. I'm usually too busy to type something out trying to keep that guy alive.

If I just carry him (and the guy who thinks that standing still for both Void Blizzard and Void Thunder is a great idea), we get the clear and I move on. If I start an argument, I get... an argument. Possibly someone being booted (who might be me, who knows how DF groups will react), and it just takes longer to get the clear. That does not mean I think these people are just swell and its cool, despite the fact that "stand in all the stuff and keep DPSing" is actually a viable way for a SAM to clear that fight.

All it means is that it's easier to carry them than it is to argue with them.

This is the same thing. You can do something to help the group. You're actively refusing to, choosing to do nothing instead. Silence from the rest of the party does not imply consent, because nobody but them knows if it's consent or if its "ugh, why is this person not doing anything?" on Discord.

And it's not surprising considering it's just DF, as to why people would go into that with high expectations is beyond me.

How is "not stand around for 80% of the fight eating popcorn" a high expectation? That's below minimum for the other roles. It's below minimum according to SE, as the Hall of the Novice explicitly tells newbies.

You don't know what you're going to get and not everyone that plays this game play on the same level. You'll get someone who dies a lot, someone who doesn't know rotation, a tank that has trouble holding aggro and/or takes a lot of damage.

Oddly, there's no 80 page thread on the tank forum arguing why it's acceptable to not hold aggro and not use cooldowns. People see that and say "okay, here's how you fix that."

There's also no 80 page thread on the DPS forum arguing that spamming Jolt is just fine and using other buttons is an overly heavy burden and a second job.

All three of them will say "stuff happens in DF and you'll get people who are making these mistakes." ONLY the healers have people arguing that saying people should try and improve their play instead of continuing to make those mistakes is being a mean elitist.

While I understand in PF content like savage and ex fights because that requires you to go at it. DF is just casual content that many do to just relax, not feel as if they're having a second job.

If hitting a button more than once every 10 seconds is a second job, then I don't even know what to say.

[Tridus]

While we're talking about Sylvie... god that quest pissed me off so much.

I came to CNJ as my second class, after BLM. I grabbed it because I wanted to heal. Then all these quests keep making me kill things instead with my two DPS spells, and I was really annoyed about it, especially when I failed a couple of them and had to do it again. Took me a while to figure out if I should be killing things or healing NPCs or what.

Eventually I realized that the game design encourages you to DPS by giving you both the tools to put up effective DPS (especially now) and giant windows with little to no incoming damage to do it, but back then? Ugh, no. I wanted to camp out in front of Stillglade Fane with a sign saying "Sylvie is right!"

[Tridus]

It's easy to understand however - Healing primarily is a nurturing fantasy, not a destructive one. Stereotypically ascribed to women (Coincidences: Our healer jobs are about nature, fairies and sparkles and usually have a dress as dresscode), the appeal is to prevent harm, rather than cause it. Many people drawn to it would like to be the guy/gal who delivers people from pain and eases their sorrows, to cure the sick and help the wounded. A saint! And saints don't kill people (Unless you play Saints Row).

Yeah, I get that. It speaks to my own experience, because I play healers in a lot of games, and support classes. I remember being frustrated by the CNJ class quests and all the DPS they wanted me to do (and my current Pathfinder character is a buffer/healer Cleric, because I absolutely have a type). It wouldn't apply to everyone, of course, but I definitely see myself in it, and it's been a change as I got older from what I used to play (which was effectively Lina Inverse).

If we were redesigning the game to change how healing works and there was a "healers should do more healing and less DPS in groups than right now", I'd be all on board. That's what I expected when I came over from WoW, after all.

That said, the game we have right now isn't that. It actually reminds me of Pathfinder or D&D more than other MMOs. My healer Cleric has the best healing in the game, arguably the best party buffs in the game, and the ability remove the most negative status effects... and also some of the most powerful offensive magic. They explicitly give you the ability to convert offensive spells to healing on the fly, so people with a lot of system mastery aim to disable enemies with offense and toss up buffs first, and only heal when it becomes necessary (ideally when combat is over). The reason why is that if you can stun (or paralyze, or kill) the enemies before they attack, there's nothing to heal.

Compare to when I played WoW, where Holy Priest DPS was garbage (because you could use dual spec to go Shadow for soloing) and damage was coming in constantly. It simply wasn't practical to do any kind of meaningful DPS in most fights (with a couple of mechanics based exceptions). I think that's what a lot of people expect a healing role to look like in a MMO, and the XIV version is very different.

[Zojha]

What I'm disgusted by is the sexist, stereotypical description of players of healer roles you wrote (without a hint of critical approach), in addition to the stereotype itself.

You're just reading something into it I didn't write. I noted the sexist part as a mere stereotype right off the bat. The words:"Stereotypically ascribed to..." are a dead giveaway that I'm merely pointing out an existing stereotype there, which exists regardless of whether you or I like it or not. Perhaps you were so pre-occupied with being offended that you didn't notice that? Either way, I acknowledged that it is merely a stereotype, I acknowledged that both sexes are playing the role and I acknowledged that it doesn't apply to everyone. I can put a giant, bolded disclaimer in red letters next time if it helps and also elaborate on the difference between sex and gender while I'm at it. Personally, I thought that the critical approach was apparent, but I may just have overestimated my readers. I apologize for that.

[...] and no one is justifying following them on any other role but healer.

Where have you been during the STR meta in HW? Heck, where have you been after SB dropped and the i270 accs were BiS?

Of course tanks tried to justify using VIT accessories because it makes them "tankier", even if it didn't. There are still arguments about tank stance going on right now. They aren't arguing about using damaging abilities at all, but actively fighting people is part of the fantasy even for PLDs. The knight in shiny armor isn't just protecting the princess, he's also slaying the dragon. And DISCLAIMER: THAT AS WELL CONTAINS STEREOTYPES. Bolded and caps'd this time for emphasis, I'll figure out how to make it red later. Similarly, the clash for other jobs isn't as big either.

If you have better theories for why the debate remains so persistent, feel free to shoot. Maybe the sound effects of the spells induce lethargy. Or maybe the letters H e a l e r in that order cause a reaction in the brain that inhibits aggression. Who knows? I don't think there are many scientific studies on that.

And please, don't mistake this as an argument for or against healer DPS, which you seem to do right now. It isn't an argument at all - it's a proposition. It has nothing to do with whether healers should or should not DPS, neither when, why nor how. It's only tangentially relevant in that it seeks to look for reasons why so many apparently don't 'want' to, in spite of it being the superior option. There has to be a reason after all, if you believe in causality. I admit that my theory has its flaws - gladly even. I also agree that it most likely isn't the only factor. I do think it is a big one however.

[Miste]

Exactly who Miste said the majority was: the group you are in. Be it DF or PF.

Yep! Thank you for helping clarify HyoMin ^^

I believe he means that the majority of the group aka 3 or 7 of the 4/8 people decide what the group should do. For instance if 3 out of 4 are against mass pulls, then you better adjust as the 4th guys who complains about the (new) tank not doing big pulls.

I'm a she, but yes, thank you also for helping to clarify, that is what I meant ^^

(rest of this response is just in general, not towards you specifically era1Ne)

I adjust my play around others all the time to compromise to the group in order to be fair to everyone, and I've never been kicked out of a DF group except for one time (in 4 years even), but it was my own fault (and it wasn't about play style).

If I do a double pull on tank and I see the DPS is too slow, the healer is struggling and/or asks me to only single pull and the group agrees, or we wipe? I reduce down to single pulls even though that is not my idea of fun or my preferred play style. I can see if the group just cannot handle it or if the group requested it of me then I will adjust to what is good for the group.

On healer if I get a tank who is undergeared, new, allergic to cooldowns, typical squishy...I mean my preference is to have a bit of fun DPSing, but obviously I have to lower my DPS to heal in that case and I adjust and do it because it is better for the group.

As a DPS I prefer big pulls to have more fun AoEing down a group of mobs, but if the tank or healer is new, undergeared, etc...do I go and pull extra sets on DPS? No. I adjust and accept it. If there seems to be no reason why we aren't doing multipulls I may ask the group if we can. If they agree? Great. If they disagree? Oh well. I just continue doing my job on single pulls.

Since I went into DF I have to accept these situations might happen and I may not be able to play the exact way I have fun because I need to adjust or compromise to the group and what is best for the group or what they might request me to do as a majority over me.

Healer DPS is always good for the group even if you just use some instant cast dots or swiftcast an AoE when everyone's HP is above 75%. If you do a bit of DPS on healer no one is going to be like "omg don't do that can't you see its bad for the group" since no one is suggesting you should focus too much on it if people are going to die. Just at least DPS when no healing is needed and everyone is almost full HP if you are that worried or unsure.

So yeah, if others are going to refuse to compromise when I actively compromise all the time...chances are I won't have any respect for someone who refuses to compromise even a little bit or does the whole "it's my sub I play how I want" bee ess.

I mean imagine all those above situations if I took the philosophy of "it's my sub I play how I want" and refused to adjust or compromise at all....I would be double pulling even if it keeps wiping the party or almost wiping the party and the healer is stressed out and not having fun at all. I would be DPSing on healer too much with a new, undergeared, allergic to cooldowns, squishy tank and subsequently letting them die and possibly wipe the party. I would be running ahead of the tank on DPS to pull more for them and possibly cause wipes or problems.

And before someone says "oh you can't compare that to not DPSing on healer"....that's not the point I am trying to make about that part of it. I am saying that if one person is allowed to use the excuse "it's my sub I play how I want" then it means everyone else can too no matter what problems it causes.

[Taika]

You're just reading something into it I didn't write. I noted the sexist part as a mere stereotype right off the bat. The words:"Stereotypically ascribed to..." are a dead giveaway that I'm merely pointing out an existing stereotype there, which exists regardless of whether you or I like it or not. Perhaps you were so pre-occupied with being offended that you didn't notice that? Either way, I acknowledged that it is merely a stereotype, I acknowledged that both sexes are playing the role and I acknowledged that it doesn't apply to everyone. I can put a giant, bolded disclaimer in red letters next time if it helps and also elaborate on the difference between sex and gender while I'm at it. Personally, I thought that the critical approach was apparent, but I may just have overestimated my readers. I apologize for that.

I'm not offended in the least, why would I be? Your description obviously didn't have anything to do with me personally. Like I said, just disgusted (and, for an equal part, I found it funny - in fact funny enough to send a screencap to a couple of my friends so we could laugh at it together) by your sexist post. Simply saying something is a stereotype does not automatically imply a critical attitude, and in fact descriptions such as yours actually work to enforce those stereotypes. Furthermore, the sexist stereotyping had no relevance whatsoever to your argument: if your point was to argue that there are people who feel strongly about playing a certain type of role in a certain way, then describing that person in a stereotypical and demeaning way works more against your argument than to support it.

Edit, replying to a later post:

Then... why did you go out of your way to announce that it 'has' something to do with you personally earlier, by specifically pinpointing the exact tangent by which it has something to do with you personally (female healer main)? >_> Come on, you're contradicting yourself now.

What I said was I don't recognise myself (as a woman and as a previous healer main) from that description, and, as such, I have no reason to be offended by it. I don't know, maybe using phrases such as "Fairies and sparkles my butt" make it seem to you that I'm offended and taking the post very seriously, but I was actually trying to communicate the opposite.

I agree that mentioning the gender had no relevance - I don't think I claimed it had either, so you're just wailing at a strawman there.

I said bringing up that gender stereotype was not supporting your argument and explained why. You brought up the gender stereotype and it did not support your argument. That's not a strawman (since I didn't claim you claimed anything but what you were actually arguing: that people have feelings about how they'd wish certain classes to play), that's pointing out a weakness in your argument.

The entire gender bit was merely a contextual side remark, which you're blowing entirely out of proportion.

I can see you meant it as such, but I simply pointed it out as a sexist way of describing what you were trying to say. I have not said anything else about it than it's a sexist stereotype and by describing it the way you did enforces the stereotype instead of critisising it. I have only made this one simple point, and not even in that many words. If you find this to be "blowing [something] entirely out of proportion", then so be it.

Neither does calling a stereotype out enforce it. The opposite is the case. Most stereotypes are implicit UNTIL they've been called out and actively reflected upon.

You're half correct in this: stereotypes need to be called out and be actively reflected to deconstruct them. But again: simply bringing up a stereotype, for example using a phrase such as "all [insert a group of people] are generally stereotyped as [insert a negative word]" without any critical context or reflection does nothing but offer a new voice for that stereotype, thus enforcing it.

This is an ad hominem, yes

Well at least you're admitting it, I guess.

Adding one thing, just to make things a bit clearer: What I said was I'm disgusted by sexism. I'm also disgusted by racism, homophobia and other forms of discriminatory attitudes and actions. As a consequence, I find it disgusting when these things are brought up without critical context, because it normalises and reinforces them. I try to point out when I see this happening, because I believe that to be a way of preventing them from being normalised and reinforced - especially by people who I don't believe are meaning to do that (like the person I was replying to). That doesn't mean I would be personally offended or angry or in any other way reacting strongly (I wish I would live in a world where things like that would be so rare I would feel strongly about them and react to them accordingly). I also don't think expressing distaste for discriminating attitudes and behaviours is in any way radical and should not be read or reacted to as such.

[Cynfael]

Hall of the novice is the only vaild argument here as harsh as it sounds, because all the rest whether or not it is used as an argument for or against healer dealing dmg, is just an dialog an the opinion of an NPC and NOT Square Enix.

What.

As others have pointed out, NPC AI and dialog are implemented by SE.

Further, yet again, the opinion of any SE employee, up to and including Yoshi-P, is irrelevant to any gameplay discussion. What they actually code into the game is what affects how we play.

[Zojha]

I'm not offended in the least, why would I be? Your description obviously didn't have anything to do with me personally.

Since this is getting excessive (and exceedingly off topic), I'll put it in spoiler tags.

As a woman who has mained a healer for many years in this game - [...] - I find this description equally funny and disgusting.

Then... why did you go out of your way to announce that it 'has' something to do with you personally earlier, by specifically pinpointing the exact tangent by which it has something to do with you personally (female healer main)? >_> Come on, you're contradicting yourself now.

I agree that mentioning the gender had no relevance - I don't think I claimed it had either, so you're just wailing at a strawman there. The entire gender bit was merely a contextual side remark, which you're blowing entirely out of proportion. It's a stereotype that exists, I phrased it as such and if you don't think explicitly phrasing something as a stereotype, rather than an unreflected truth, already implies that you critically reflected upon it to such a degree as to realize it as a mere stereotype, then that's on you.

Neither does calling a stereotype out enforce it. The opposite is the case. Most stereotypes are implicit UNTIL they've been called out and actively reflected upon. Anything else just serves to perpetuate it for generations, because it remains implicit and unquestioned. What you can fault me for is that I only called the gender bit out on being a stereotype, I did not go into great detail what it entails but rather quickly went on with gender neutral ideas associated with the fantasy.

And again, there is no argument brought forth by me. You keep referring to it as such, in spite of me spelling out for you what it actually is. I can only assume that you lack the reading comprehension to understand it and it is likely that you are misunderstanding my first post for the very same reason. This is an ad hominem, yes, however, I conclude from this that talking with you is pointless and will only derail the thread further and further.
As such, this will be my last post to you on the matter and you can then make a final post afterward so you can claim internal "victory" over me. People always do, it helps the mind to find closure.