Idea to fix controversy about healer dps.

[MoroMurasaki]

OP I understand where you're coming from, I made a similar suggestion in a thread a while ago in General Discussion, but after a lot of consideration I came to an unfortunate conclusion.

Lazy healers that don't dps will still be lazy healers that don't dps even if dps would buff their healing output. They aren't avoiding a third of their kit in the name of efficency, they're doing it because they don't care enough about the time and effort of their party.

A really good healer is one that balances their healing and dps around what is most necessary at the time, making good use of cooldowns and oGCD skills to give their all for their party. I have a way to go to get there myself but I would bring up my o5s clear earlier tonight - boss at 3%, 3 dps die. A SMN is alive with tanks and healers. I hardly healed at the end there, we were approaching enrage. I didn't raise anyone I burned everything I had on killing that train.

I would have done the exact same thing even if my dps buffed my healing. It was the best choice for the party.

I don't think this debate will ever end because the anti-dps crusade will never see reason despite it being right in their face. I liked the ideas but I think this disagreement will persist throughout the life of this game.

If there are two healers and two tanks in an instance, then the off-tank tends to switch to DPS unless the content is demanding enough to swap, but with a healer, the entire purpose of the second healer tends to be "revive the first healer if they 1hit-ko'd, else DPS" not "take over when the first healer runs out of MP" .

This is just plain untrue. This is a rare outlook and healers that behave this way also care nothing for efficency. It's a straw man and has no place in this discussion.

Main and off healing more or less died with old Cleric Stance and I haven't seen anyone suggest it outside of a static enviroment in such a long time I forgot it was ever an issue.