Geomancer

[MirronTulaxia]

Snip.

1. It is subjective because degrees of similarity is based off of ones perception of how similar they are to another.

2. Geomancer has plenty of unique weapon, lore, and so on to work with.

3. Using two elements (Conjury doesn't even have a viable Water spell) that White Mages have since dumped does not make it the same job. Whether it is too similar is, again, subjective.

4. And I am making a judgment that they are not that close, and ultimately these are both subjective arguments. You even said as such at the end with "it's an opinion".

Snip.

1. White Mage has since dropped "nature" as an option.

2. Even if one wants to argue that White Mage still has it, one can very easily handle it by saying Geomancers are "Eastern" Nature Healers. Coupled with White Mage all but abandoning the Nature part it's more than different enough.

3. I wouldn't label them both as "Nature" mages though either. Hence the Druid and Shaman comparison.

4. Trying to speculate on how many people would be excited or disappointed about an unknown job based off of subjective similarity to another job is pointless. You could just as easily say Casters would be disappointed to get Geomancer and thus they won't even do the job at all because it was similar to White Mage. At the end of the day you're dealing with such a small, small, small part of what a job looks like (what elements it uses) and then attempting to write whole cloth what that must mean.

5. If Geomancer can't stand apart from White Mage then it shouldn't be a job. That you think a different role somehow means it stands apart or doesn't is the issue. I don't think any current job is the same as another, the role does not somehow dictate who is and is not similar.

Snip.

1. I think you completely misunderstand my point when what I'm saying is they could very well just make something new, call it Geomancer, and the existing lore is just another branch or whatever.

2. I would not, remotely, use 1.0 as a basis for anything. Unless you're still waiting for Musketeer and Shepard it's kind of a moot argument at this point. The game has changed vastly since then.

3. To you they fit a similar fantasy. To me they do not. The fantasy of a job is not dependent on the role it's in.

4. I've done those fights, have the book, so on and so forth. And none of that is a rebuttal to subjectivity. At all. If you want to argue that Geomancer needs to be a Caster or else it's the same as White Mage (or however "too similar" is to you) then you would need to be able to objectively argue that on some absolute value. As what you are talking about is, ultimately, not a fact but an opinion, you have no argument.

5. What I proposed is the same as Ishgardian Astrologians to Sharlayan with X Geomancers to Y Geomancers.

6. If you understand that Red Mages have been a lot of things but still keep the same theme then you can understand how Geomancers can be healers and keep the same theme here.

Snip.

I mean, again, I don't see them as filling the same thematic role because they share elements. You're making an argument that only exists because you have an explicit stance that I don't agree with. If Geomancers are so similar to White Mages that the only thing that can possibly separate them is a different role then something has failed critically. I don't see Paladins as the same thing as White Mages separated by role, but they're both "holy" themed, so by the logic shared here then they must be the same. Or, maybe what makes a job different from another one is a bit deeper than simply the elements it uses and the role it occupies.

I will also add as a side note that we know the lore team takes backseat to the main developing team. If the main developing team wants Geomancers as healers all the lore in the world means nothing really. The lore team builds around what the others do. Citing lore as an argument when it could be brushed away as easily as spider web isn't a great argument. I don't think the lore somehow means Geomancers are the same as Conjurers but even if it absolutely meant they were then it would be kind of moot in the long run.