New Healer Job Suggestion: Necromancer

[Archwizard]

As you've suggested though, I'll attempt a mock-up of having replaced every single Role Action--returning each capacity to native toolkits (each in unique ways)--to be posted separately.

Where I'm torn is, I don't think each role necessarily needs every single action replaced, since that's just more work for the programmers, and half the point of role actions is to mitigate that. (Granting we ended up with 3 different versions of Raise which I consider the greatest failing, but what can you do.)
Sure many of them could be more thematic, but there's ultimately little point trying to make a more "unique" version of, say, Cleric Stance or Protect (especially if the latter doesn't stack, as it shouldn't). Even in cases like Esuna or Raise, the base effect is ultimately what matters, but a slight alteration that doesn't terribly impact the ability's balance would be passable.

Like I said, I could see some jobs being slightly better at specific things, so long as they all still have the base capabilities to fulfill their roles. In many cases I think just a trait for one to three role actions would be fine to give that extra flavor.

[Shurrikhan]

Sorry to use up more posts in your thread when I hoped the previous would be my last bit in that tangent, but I don't want to force you to jump between pages with yet another stream of edits, so...

Where I'm torn is, I don't think each role necessarily needs every single action replaced, since that's just more work for the programmers, and half the point of role actions is to mitigate that.

It wasn't any part of the point, though. You don't take the time to remove art assets, names, and icons, each already with their full development time spent, and re-ID each to a newly created ID within a newly created system with newly created schema to save time. If everything about the result accomplished the opposite of a given intent, that probably wasn't the intent. If stated as such, the statement was almost certainly a lie.

One can debate the actual goal of Role Actions -- e.g. whether it was a sale point that attempted to mitigate the concerns over how the devs failed to diversify mostly-shared skills apart from by matching each to their respective job's aesthetics or how instanced environments have progressively trimmed our effective skill count since ARR by immunizing almost all enemies to almost all CC (and the few remaining, to all CC), leaving us with handfuls of "waste" skills, while still seeming "new and innovative" -- but we do at least have clear examples of what is what was not.

(Granting we ended up with 3 different versions of Raise which I consider the greatest failing, but what can you do.)
Sure many of them could be more thematic, but there's ultimately little point trying to make a more "unique" version of, say, Cleric Stance or Protect (especially if the latter doesn't stack, as it shouldn't).

This is why I'd follow capacity, rather than a one-to-one correspondence. There's zero reason for the capacity involved in either Cleric Stance or Protect to exist as separate skills. One amounts to less than a percent's damage bonus over time. The other amounts to a few percent of mitigation that can be compensated for by just raising baseline Defense and Magic Defense values by the same. Those don't need buttons.

...Though, technically, neither does a single healer Role Action save for perhaps Esuna or, tangentially, Break, come to think of it. I can accomplish each capacity through the respective native kits and even the sparsest use of dynamic skills (e.g. Aero/Stone being castable on an ally)...

Like I said, I could see some jobs being slightly better at specific things, so long as they all still have the base capabilities to fulfill their roles. In many cases I think just a trait for one to three role actions would be fine to give that extra flavor.

Honestly, I'd be fine with leaving, say, one's single choice of Rescue (buffed), Surecast, or Break (buffed), as they are all situational. ...Though, I'd prefer that one instead picked 1 of 3 or 2 of 4, etc, Masteries unique to their own job, if the players actually feel they need an additional system like that (despite its technically being a restriction, as it siphons would-be baseline skills into something that requires trips to town or menu-fighting between actual fights just to get access to them again).

I just don't think it makes any sense to actively go out of one's way to make effects fit the aesthetic of only one out of n jobs in a given role all to excuse a failure to diversify abilities when you could, with the same effort, have diversified them. I know it's too late not to have already wasted that development time, but the sheer extent of effort Role Actions spent on spinning a failure as an accomplishment sickens me, and -- more importantly -- I do still want to see healer and tank kits feel more distinct, just as I did before they actively made them less distinct.

[Archwizard]

Sorry to use up more posts in your thread when I hoped the previous would be my last bit in that tangent, but I don't want to force you to jump between pages with yet another stream of edits, so...

Oh, don't worry about that at all! The discussion is very relevant after all, and it invites new ideas.

For instance, what a more "thematic" version of a Necromancer Raise would be. Most likely reviving someone as some form of the undead, but what would that entail? Your AST idea already covers creating a playable medium...

Likewise, if there is any debate as to the state of existing healers, then new concepts need to be part of that discussion to have any hope of refinement, ie "X and Y are already issues but this concept exacerbates them."

It wasn't any part of the point, though. You don't take the time to remove art assets, names, and icons, each already with their full development time spent, and re-ID each to a newly created ID within a newly created system with newly created schema to save time. If everything about the result accomplished the opposite of a given intent, that probably wasn't the intent. If stated as such, the statement was almost certainly a lie.

A fair point, but one I think needs to be weighed against the potential for introducing new jobs in future expansions. If every healer requires the same obligatory skills like Esuna/Leeches, Swiftcast and Protect with little differentiation, it doesn't make much sense to have to copy-paste the same code under a new name every time a new job comes out (and that's ignoring back-end issues like data space, competing priorities, etc). In which case, your options are either to diversify them while retaining the same balance (as you would), or cut the excess.
At any rate, those same art assets and icons can be recycled later down the line, be it for new skills, other jobs with overlapping motifs, or even for traiting the equivalent skill. For instance, SCH could have a "Leeches" trait to add a bonus effect to Esuna while changing its visual effect to the old Leeches, and nothing of value would be lost.

Furthermore, the existence of Role Actions allows for access to those same "obligatory" skills in downsynched content, which is important since most of those Role Actions are equally relevant regardless of level, and a job like SCH would otherwise be S.O.L. having to wait until 40 for their own debuff-removing effect if they ever ran Leveling or Guildhest Roulette.

Honestly, I'd be fine with leaving, say, one's single choice of Rescue (buffed), Surecast, or Break (buffed), as they are all situational. ...Though, I'd prefer that one instead picked 1 of 3 or 2 of 4, etc, Masteries unique to their own job, if the players actually feel they need an additional system like that (despite its technically being a restriction, as it siphons would-be baseline skills into something that requires trips to town or menu-fighting between actual fights just to get access to them again).

Sounds like the Talents system in WoW. Based on my experience there's still only an illusion of choice, players just end up picking the ones they find most appropriate to the content they're queuing up for.

I only began playing last November, but wasn't there some early iteration of Role Actions that only allowed you to choose 5 out of the 10? I would expect the issue ended up being that the highest priority ones made for cookie cutter builds.

[Shurrikhan]

Oh, don't worry about that at all! The discussion is very relevant after all, and it invites new ideas.

For instance, what a more "thematic" version of a Necromancer Raise would be. Most likely reviving someone as some form of the undead, but what would that entail? Your AST idea already covers creating a playable medium...

I would think it could make for a distinct version thereof. The spitball AST idea would be about levitating (in the etymological sense) the body and gravitating the soul such that the two can stay in proximity, by simply tying it to a large part of the battlefield resources AST creates and plays around.
For NCM, though, we have all those Revenants to work from. I would think sacrificing a Revenant to return the player immediately to psuedo-life (with some particular capacity based on Revenants if Revenants were ever thus varied) would be reasonable, perhaps alongside the ability to more literally puppet a corpse (similar, but not exactly so, to how one would command a Revenant).

Option 1: DPS died and wouldn't be able to survive upon resurrection without strenuous attention from the healers. You bond one of your Revenants to its corpse to decrease the charged/channeled rez-HP necessary to complete the resurrection and increase the player's HP upon resurrection. You only have this bonding option when an ally is dead and said option has a cooldown, but you can sever this connection at any time.

Option 2: MT died? Okay, OT takes over until the next double-swap, no problem. Except, said swap will occur in 4 seconds, and your Death-eater (tanking) Revenant can't handle that on its own (largely because it can't taunt bosses, and/or the mechanic will deal raid damage if its target dies). Well, stick your Death-eater in the tank's corpse for that added bit of mitigation and systemic permission to taunt bosses. The Death-eater will leave the corpse when the resurrection completes, shedding the clothes, so to speak, of the tank when their owner returns.

Likewise, if there is any debate as to the state of existing healers, then new concepts need to be part of that discussion to have any hope of refinement, ie "X and Y are already issues but this concept exacerbates them."

A fair point, but one I think needs to be weighed against the potential for introducing new jobs in future expansions. If every healer requires the same obligatory skills like Esuna/Leeches, Swiftcast and Protect with little differentiation, it doesn't make much sense to have to copy-paste the same code under a new name every time a new job comes out (and that's ignoring back-end issues like data space, competing priorities, etc). In which case, your options are either to diversify them while retaining the same balance (as you would), or cut the excess.

It would take at least 5 tanks and healers before their Role Actions could save time, even had the new fluff skills not been introduced.

We've yet to hear anything about Exalted Detriment and Leeches, for instance, taking up any more data space than, say, an Achievement or Emote. And even if that were a concern, we wouldn't then throw in unimpactful skills like the new Cleric Stance. Even if the absolute worst possible cost were true, personally, I'd much rather have my DRK-Rampart look like it actually belongs on a DRK than have one more waste skill. And there is so much more that can be done with Shadowskin that it's almost absurd it was ever thrown in as just another Rampart in the first place.

Let's keep in mind, also, this is the development team that thought it would be quicker to remake the art assets of every 1H+Shield primal weapon set into two handers than to allow a one-handed weapon to be glamoured onto a two-handed weapon, eventually coming up with the glamour solution two patches later. Art is relatively quick for this team. Almost anything to do with code... apparently not so much. So how much time would making this new system have cost, I wonder? I doubt the time saved on a Healer/Tank #6, even, would be enough to have saved time overall, and that's assuming they can somehow copy-pasta a third of each's kit -- albeit more blatantly, via Role Actions -- without infuriating the playerbase to the point of quitting.

Now, that poor record on code efficiency and design does make it more likely, if only a little, that code space is a real concern, but if that is true -- we're looking at getting, what, 4 more skills (in total, across all jobs, including new jobs) over the lifetime of this expansion as a result of the skill merge. Heck, Dancer and Gunbreaker alone would force us to prune a handful of skills from every existent job.

At any rate, those same art assets and icons can be recycled later down the line, be it for new skills, other jobs with overlapping motifs, or even for traiting the equivalent skill. For instance, SCH could have a "Leeches" trait to add a bonus effect to Esuna while changing its visual effect to the old Leeches, and nothing of value would be lost.

Furthermore, the existence of Role Actions allows for access to those same "obligatory" skills in downsynched content, which is important since most of those Role Actions are equally relevant regardless of level, and a job like SCH would otherwise be S.O.L. having to wait until 40 for their own debuff-removing effect if they ever ran Leveling or Guildhest Roulette.

I doubt there is a grain of difference in outcome between the two, except that one is allowed its own name and icon while the other, despite likely taking the same code-space to apply an otherwise dormant trait that improves and animation-swaps a skill that is not even one's own. And if the skill really is mandatory, why have the player jump through hoops to attach it?

On the latter point, a reminder: Shield Oath used to be given at level 40, with Sword Oath at level 30. They have since swapped places. If a skill is to be essential, though I cannot think of a single piece of content made notably more difficult from lack of Esuna before level 44, then we could just swap Leeches to level 30. Or, heck, turn Energy Drain into a dual-skill in the first place(Energy Drain/Drain Spike on enemies, Leech on allies), trading the 150 potency of damage for the cleanse (and perhaps 150 HP of healing), and now applying the mana bonus (more sizeable, now that LD is gone, alongside MP regeneration means elsewhere, as before LD) split across the both of you based on each of your missing %MP. That's certainly the more Arcanist-like approach.

Will edit to cover the rest when I get back from work.

EDIT:

Sounds like the Talents system in WoW. Based on my experience there's still only an illusion of choice, players just end up picking the ones they find most appropriate to the content they're queuing up for.

I only began playing last November, but wasn't there some early iteration of Role Actions that only allowed you to choose 5 out of the 10? I would expect the issue ended up being that the highest priority ones made for cookie cutter builds.

Tl;dr: (1) Illusion of choice is about as meaningful as "everything can be quantified"; it's true, but its impact varies immensely. (2) I don't actually like customization -- I just mentioned it because SE only seems to like to replace gimmicks/systems with other gimmicks/systems, and an idea like Masteries or whatnot seems like it might be among the least intrusive.

In detail:

"Illusion of Choice" depends on several other factors, namely:

1. The breadth of "real" content (flat)
2. The relative narrowness of content considered "real" content (percentile)
3. Individual players' perceived importance of "real" content (e.g. does it matter if something isn't optimal in Savage if I only like running dungeons?)
4. The breadth of applicability of talent compositions across content ("real" content's most optimal choices can be more limited in breadth than the less optimal, but choices should still be applicable across the board)
5. The performance margin required to be considered a significant difference
6. The degree to which players focus on options available or options not available (flat vs. percentile)
7. The degree to which players focus on the percentage of options that are available or the number of options available (flat vs. percentile)
8. The number of choices within the accepted margin (flat)
9. The ratio of viable choices to non-viable choices (or, the percent of total choices which are viable) (percentile)

Unless customization is done very, very well, illusion of choice is a certain outcome. Whether that will prevent the addition of customization options from improving the player experience, however, a much narrower and more difficult question. And only the latter is actually worth discussing when considering positive design or development efficiency.

Personally, I am not a fan of customization, at least as it is typically implemented. I loved the heck out of outperforming far better geared and more experienced players using "trash" talent build variants in WotLK. But, I think that was a matter of me finding the gameplay I really wanted and then making it work for myself despite the barrier that was customization (and, of course, a hefty share of smug vindication) than it was a love of theorycrafting for its own sake. After all, every choice a player makes for Option A out of A, B, and C, is essentially stripping options B and C from typical use.

I see this trimming of the toolkit as practical only "when necessary" -- when a rotation would otherwise be too cluttered in its optimal form or have just an incommensurate or frustrating amount of nuances and conditionals and sub-strategies that could muddle the aesthetics the job could otherwise focus on more clearly across its playflow. Until we get to that point, customization should not be given unto menus, but rather in how we choose to use shared resources between our skills, be it basic resources like MP or more unique resources like Gauge or especially unique resource like Sen, or special effect generated from spending certain Sen or even time itself, be it over a fight or a particular burst window or in conflict with CD-immediacy with another skill, etc., etc..

And while I can see how that might be useful eventually, perhaps even within Shadowbringers, I do not believe such a system is necessary. I mentioned it only because I wholly believe that Role Actions are yet another bait-and-switch, replacing one flawed system with another in order to change the conversation rather than having to fix the flaws in execution of the first system. It's not the first time.

• When we lost the open toolkit system (the original "Armory" system, whereby you could synergize skills from any proficiency [class] into and through any weapon), rather than daring to look at why the execution failed, they blamed the concept and said the "build your own job was doomed from the start!" and gave us jobs. "But look! Jobs!"
• When they failed to finish and then outright cut the former Battle Regimen (Skill Chains' + Magic Bursts' red-haired cousin) system and its combo concepts that would have given Stamina a decent pacing they said the Stamina Bar was a flawed concept from the start because it slowed combat, and replaced it with XI's generative TP, which was even slower, more AA-dependent, and brought us down from some 5-16 viable combat skills to choose from per GCD to at most 3 (combo A, combo B, and sometimes a reactive skill). But alas, "Look! Combos!"
• When they implemented a dual-job class without allowing for job-based EXP or job traits which could affect their class skills they said dual-jobs were fundamentally flawed. This was "A lesson learned!" (Never mind that it didn't actually have to go that poorly...)
• And now? "Additional skills were fundamentally flawed because they obliged players to level multiple jobs." (Never mind that you could have allowed the Additional Skills as adaptations, whereby one swaps Keen Flurry for an untraited Bloodbath or vice-versa, which would have greatly mitigated the issue.) "The Additional Skills spent buttons on skills of minor importance, wasting bar-space!" (Never mind that there is a difference between infrequently used and the truly situational; situational skills can be left off bars, while infrequently used skills remain obligatory, but waste their slots for all but that second of their use.) And so, we could have simply removed Additional Skills and trimmed "redundant" skills. But alas, we can't just remove a system without replacing it! "And what's that? We had skills that were basically the same as another job's skill? Well, no longer will we foolishly waste space on these redundancies!" (Never mind that the space saved is insignificant and the issue could have been better solved by simply... diversifying the previously uncreative skills.) And so we have another system, Role Actions, even though it fixes none of the deeper issues it responds to.

It's often western 'money-grabbing' companies we think of as throwing previous visions for games or whatnot under the bus and spinning the narrative in order to seem responsive to the playerbase, reactive to past failures, and progressive in their roadmap when in fact nothing's really been done, but there's scarcely a ploy that you can point at from some Western company currently under the spotlight that someone who's been on XIV from the start wouldn't have seen already in this game alone. Thus...

When it comes down to it, I don't think XIV would ever abandon some shiny system without replacing it with another. Even failure has to be sold, and ever bit of "owing up" to said failure glorified and added to the march. Thus, if Role Actions were to go, then there's a very, very high likelihood something would have to take its place. Customization of that sort, then, I just think would be the least intrusive.

[gumas]

New Healer Job Suggestion: Necromancer

so basically you want us healer to become like Edda?

i would love to creep up my guildy and scare them to death =D

[Archwizard]

so basically you want us healer to become like Edda?

i would love to creep up my guildy and scare them to death =D

I could absolutely see a similar aesthetic for NCM. The gameplay wouldn't necessarily be the same, of course.

I've been thinking a lot about the lore behind this iteration of Necromancers, and came to the conclusion that it would make sense to have them be an order of priests devoted to the gods of death, Nald'thal (keeper of the underworld and god of bartering) and Nymeia (weaver of fate); priests who consecrate lichyards, send Ashkin to their final rest (a la FFX Summoners), and hunt down other necromancers who seek to subvert the natural order.
The goal of their order is the ethical use of necromancy, attempting to work within the laws of nature -- everything must die eventually and the Reaper must have his due, but the "how" and "when" of an individual's fate are flexible. By working off of life-force directly, you avoid corrupting the local aether as seen in the WHM storyline. Everything that dies fuels another life -- from fertilizing plants to feeding people, the circle of life, etc.

While BLM's questline has already covered the "Conjurer's Guild attempting to snuff out an evil magic" storyline, and you really only need a couple quests dedicated to "rebranding" initiatives, I could instead see the Necromancer having a more poignant questline related to helping people accept death and savor what time they have -- a direct retort to Nybeth Obdilord's philosophy in Palace of the Dead.

[MorbolvampireQueen6]

What has necromancer got to do with healing?

Necromancy is resurrecting the dead, which is explicitly rejected in the lore.
Outside of that one thing, there's nothing 'healy' about it.
It's more of a pet dps job.

its not rejected by lore white job a proves that...

also as much as i love undead armys true necromancy is more of a healer than a sch is...

Why because they are about balance of life and dead understanding how organs,blood,bones and so forth work that alone makes them the greatest healers.

also look at history Anicent Egypt worshiped death and have the greatest medical knowledge in history ....

You seem to not understand the art of true necromancy abilitys.


however op as much as id love it i dont think ff will do it because Moral majority dont approve of art in death.

plus healers won't get anything cool anyways nor will mage dps we get the lamest stuff compared 2 0hysical users

[Archwizard]

however op as much as id love it i dont think ff will do it because Moral majority dont approve of art in death.

plus healers won't get anything cool anyways nor will mage dps we get the lamest stuff compared 2 0hysical users

Considering we already have Dark Knights, whose moves include such fun titles as "Living Dead" and "Quietus", as well as a job that literally exists to practice Black Magic, I think we'll be safe from the "moral majority".

As for "cool", that's a matter of perspective really? I mean, next expansion Summoners can summon Demi-Phoenix, Scholars can call upon Seraphs, and White Mages can give themselves angel wings and cast Holy nukes with their "blood lilies", all of which I think are pretty cool.

Right now I'm really having to consider what the new battle system changes could mean for NCM - charges and pet changes in particular.

[Aurelius2625]

Just make a non girly healer ffs, please.

No fairies, twirly stuff, or dresses for dudes.

[MorbolvampireQueen6]

Just make a non girly healer ffs, please.

No fairies, twirly stuff, or dresses for dudes.

healers are suppose to be girly just like tanks are suppose to be manly lol