Live letter expectations.

[Acece]

I'm fascinated by all the people having fun with WHM. In my view, it needs an entire core redesign. Its core gameplay runs counter to how FFXIV's combat system works; its gauge system encourages goofy backward behavior to get the best results out of it. It has clunk all over the place. The casting flow is like mud compared to any other mage in this game. Even taking all of these core issues into account, its kit evolution is -still- an expansion behind the other two, and it has all these crappy problems on top of it all. I'm increasingly convinced that anyone who actually likes how the lilies work is comparing it to how F-tier the class was in Stormblood, instead of comparing it to a job that has actual good design behind it.

White Mage is a horribly designed job, change my mind.

I straight up don't get how people can say sch is terrible but say whm is actually good. Whm has just as many as problems sch.

[ForteNightshade]

I straight up don't get how people can say sch is terrible but say whm is actually good. Whm has just as many as problems sch.

Because White Mage's flaws aren't nearly as noticeable outside higher end content. In the hands of a skilled player attempting to optimize, you'll notice the lack of oGCD healing, the lack of mobility and constant clipping issues. None of these stand out in more casual play where someone is far less likely to even care they clipped their GCD or aren't focusing on their Glare casts.

Scholar, on the other hand, is harder to play. That alone breeds criticism. Shields are also routinely unnecessary, especially in lower difficulty content. Which means a good portion of their kit is often useless. Ghosting abilities is equally noticeable because, well, what you intended to have happen just... doesn't. Perhaps the biggest damning aspect for Scholar's criticism though is it had stuff people actually miss. White Mage suffered for years as being the "prog healer" no one wanted afterwards due to its horrible MP management, lack of utility and low damage as a result. Shadowbringers is the first expansion people actually wanted White Mage and weren't asking them to switch to Astro later. Scholar only lost many of the aspect which made it great.

Simply put. People miss what was taken away more than what could be. White Mage could be better but Scholar was better.

[Acece]

Because White Mage's flaws aren't nearly as noticeable outside higher end content. In the hands of a skilled player attempting to optimize, you'll notice the lack of oGCD healing, the lack of mobility and constant clipping issues. None of these stand out in more casual play where someone is far less likely to even care they clipped their GCD or aren't focusing on their Glare casts.

Scholar, on the other hand, is harder to play. That alone breeds criticism. Shields are also routinely unnecessary, especially in lower difficulty content. Which means a good portion of their kit is often useless. Ghosting abilities is equally noticeable because, well, what you intended to have happen just... doesn't. Perhaps the biggest damning aspect for Scholar's criticism though is it had stuff people actually miss. White Mage suffered for years as being the "prog healer" no one wanted afterwards due to its horrible MP management, lack of utility and low damage as a result. Shadowbringers is the first expansion people actually wanted White Mage and weren't asking them to switch to Astro later. Scholar only lost many of the aspect which made it great.

Simply put. People miss what was taken away more than what could be. White Mage could be better but Scholar was better.

So because whm was pretty much always bad people think it's fine now meanwhile sch was great but now it's bad because it's a bigger leap in quality. I guess I can see that. Still don't like it.

Also whm does have the most casual base out of all the healers so it make sense what you're saying.