Chad Mages What else would you want right now for our class

[Archwizard]

This isn't about creating options for every niche case, but for giving each spell on our bars some kind of use.

When niche cases are the primary justification for those spells to continue existing, it's the same thing.

Flare cannot and should not be able to do that for the same reason that Despair shouldn't be able to replace Fire 3 for swapping on single target - this would both obviate classic, well-established spells and also constitute a substantial damage buff to AoE in the former case and single target in the latter.

1) Who said anything about Despair doing the same? Despair is literally unable to be used in Umbral Ice, or even out of Astral Fire -- a point I made before when I mentioned that Flare has a weak position as a "finisher", since it can be.
Even if Despair could be, in the hypothetical world where that was on the table, I would be arguing as much about the unnecessary redundancy as I am here, with Despair likely getting the short end of that stick for being new.

2) Despair? "Classic, well-established"? What are you even talking about, it literally has never existed before FF14, and only to fulfill a niche in our rotation at that.
Even the fire-elemental variant of Flare that we use is functionally a distinct spell from the classic non-elemental "Nuke" of early entries, rather existing as part of the Elemental Wheel of ancient magics established only as far back as FF11 (Flare, Freeze(!), Flood, Burst/Surge, Tornado, Quake), with other spells (like Meteor and Ultima) taking the place of "ultimate" magics since. It's not the strongest spell in our arsenal, or even the strongest in its rotation -- it's been functionally just a filler since Stormblood for a multitude of reasons.
You want to save it from being "obviated"? Because you're a few entries late for that.

3) Ignoring just for a moment my earlier mention that all damage would have to be rebalanced regardless of whatever behavior we change, your literal justification for Fire 2 to replace Fire 3 in AoE is for damage reasons: "on a specific number of enemies [...] Fire 3 becomes a damage loss." Yet you're also arguing that by letting Flare do that same job, it's too much damage?
Okay. Let's address that real quick: Flare and Fire 3 have a 20 potency difference, base. Used as a transitional spell from UI3, that's 14 potency, in addition to the reduced peripheral damage of Flare adding a bit under 110p per additional target, versus Fire 2 adding about half that per target.
If the damage is a problem, Flare has multiple tuning knobs on it, it won't kill us if they use them. If those prove insufficient or would weaken it too much in AF, you're literally already suggesting a trait to completely alter Fire 2, so I don't see why there couldn't be one for when Flare is used under AM/UI, or even to increase its damage even further in AF. Or easier solution, just buff F3, since we only use it on transitions and procs anyway.

4) You didn't even suggest touching the potency of Fire 2 -- if your concern was that Fire 3's damage loss "isn't all that obvious from spell tooltips", I would think this would have been on the top of your priorities? Particularly since as it stands, they're still exactly equal at 3 targets.

Incidentally, "feel bad" is your phrase, not mine, so I don't know why you're putting it in scare quotes.

No, you're right, you said "it's lame".

Semantics, bud.

I say "primarily" because I don't think

More backpedaling, editorial...

and if it was intended then it shouldn't have been

... and flat out not your decision.

Funny how some tooltips are misleading, and spells are being used against their intent, but only whenever it supports your position, no?
Or more likely, you're just fitting the evidence to your agenda rather the other way around.