Let's redefine "damage taxes"

[Arguscbf]

Your argument seems to boil down to "because RDM can res a lot, it deserves to do more dps."
If this became a thing, what reason would SMN even have to exist.

At least more than SMN due to its casting and mobility. And yeah, SMN should exist because there are ppl who likes its gameplay. Simple as that.

[Avoidy]

At least more than SMN due to its casting and mobility. And yeah, SMN should exist because there are ppl who likes its gameplay. Simple as that.

I meant from a viability standpoint. If you give RDM more damage than SMN, then SMN just becomes a caster with less damage than a rdm, a worse res than rdm, worse utility than a rdm, and arguably a worse party buff as well. There is functionally no reason to bring SMN for anything at that point.

[Mithron]

This is pretty much how I feel as well. RDM also gets a barrier that shields the group against magic damage (i.e. raidwides), while SMN gets nothing like this unless you count addle, which every caster gets as a role action anyway. I'm not sure why you aren't including this under utility, but I do and so do most people when they talk about this kind of thing.

Basically, I'm just tired. I agree that RDM could use some love, but the people talking about doing more dps than smn "bcuz its ez" clearly just want their job to be on top and don't actually care about a balanced game.

I don't think defensive utility or mitigation should lower rDPS at all. That should only apply to tanks because they offer no raid damage buffs. I also don't think job difficulty should impact rDPS, either. I think both SMN and RDM currently need buffs, and personally, would like to see SMN have more utility like every summon having its own unique aura effect rather than just Phoenix.

I know what you're saying. Everyone says how Verraise is a great utility but the thing is a huge DPS loss AND delay the melee combo since we don't get white/black mana. Imo RDM should do more dmg than SMN not because of rotation complexity but because Verraise is SO punishing for a utility and should be compensated for DPS loss. SMN has an insta res every 60s if you spare Swiftcast for it AND it's way more mobile AND don't have to stay melee range to use certain skills(besides Ifrit's dash) AND have personal shield. RDM is the squishiest and the least mobile caster.

I don't think RDM should have lower damage because of Verraise, but I want to point out it's 1000000x easier to use Verraise as a RDM than it is to use Raise as a SMN because Swiftcast must be used on Slipstream (or at the very least a Ruby Rite) to avoid DPS loss. A single Verraise is much, much, much, much less punishing on RDM than a SMN using Swiftcast Raise. But I do agree RDM is far more difficult to play than SMN currently and is much less mobile.

[Arguscbf]

Your argument seems to boil down to "because RDM can res a lot, it deserves to do more dps."
If this became a thing, what reason would SMN even have to exist. Furthermore, how would you account for moments where you don't have to res at all?

Also most SMNs use swiftcast in their rotation, so holding it to "maybe" res someone later is a dps loss. Not holding it and slowressing is also an obvious dps loss. You mentioned damage losses for rdm but forgot that SMNs have tradeoffs and basically get 1 real swiftres at their disposal. You also mention not having to be in melee range, and then you immediately bring up smn's forced melee gap closer. Like, I'm not gonna defend smn as a complex job, but come on. Your own post contradicts itself.

You really wanna compare how many times RDM have to be on melee range vs. how many times SMN have to be on melee range? RDM doesnt go melee range only to do its combo. We do have 2 charges of Corps-a-corps and Engagement/Displacement, its an oGCD melee range skill.

[Avoidy]

Why are you concerned with handcuffing SMN and RDM? Can we not buff both dps? Everyone not melee across the board needs a bump up.

I'm only bringing them up because this thread, like many balance threads in this forum, has some RDM mains using poor logic to defend wanting better utility and better damage than the only job (in their caster role) they're in direct competition with. I do agree that non melee need something though, because they're literally calling it meleewalker at this point it's so bad. More than anything I'm tired of hearing the "easy to play" argument when we're playing a game where SAM is top dps, and I'm tired of disingenuous arguments from people who clearly just want their favorite job to dominate and don't care about how it screws over the other jobs within that role.

[Arguscbf]

I'm only bringing them up because this thread, like many balance threads in this forum, has some RDM mains using poor logic to defend wanting better utility and better damage than the only job (in their caster role) they're in direct competition with. I do agree that non melee need something though, because they're literally calling it meleewalker at this point it's so bad. More than anything I'm tired of hearing the "easy to play" argument when we're playing a game where SAM is top dps, and I'm tired of disingenuous arguments from people who clearly just want their favorite job to dominate and don't care about how it screws over the other jobs within that role.

IMO i don't want RDM to have better utility, it's fine the way it is. RDM just need potency buffs due to its long casting spells and for being the least mobile caster.

[CKNovel]

I meant from a viability standpoint. If you give RDM more damage than SMN, then SMN just becomes a caster with less damage than a rdm, a worse res than rdm, worse utility than a rdm, and arguably a worse party buff as well. There is functionally no reason to bring SMN for anything at that point.

The problem with RDM is that its res value is paradoxal.
The more you res the more value you get out of res but also reduces both your mana and your clear chances.
On the opposite, the less you res, the more rewarded the group is while res just lose its value.

The value you get out of the res, the more the group is rewarded.
You still get the debuff weakness in any case, that it is the healer or the RDM barely changes anything.
And if you were to res both healer, they would still suffer weakness, most likely leading to a wipe.

The less you use the res, the better it is and vice versa. Which I why I believe taxing it would be a paradox value.

It doesn't help that a res in week 1 (where DPS is the most needed), a single weakness debuff can be synonymous of a wipe due to body check and tight dps check.
Due to this, I also believes res shouldn't be taxed. Healing utility, however, should be taken in account if all DPS cannot bring something to compensate for the healing.
Curing Waltz and Improvisation, for example, can relieves a lot of stress from Healers and allows them to damage more. Which is an indirect DPS increase.

SMN still has its personal shield and AoE healing, it brings a unique value to compete with RDM.
Both jobs don't require more than a few brain cell to play, comparing them in term of difficulty is like arguing that a bland omelette is harder to cook than a boiled egg.
Yes one of them can be deemed harder than the other but both are very basic cooking.

[Arguscbf]

I meant from a viability standpoint. If you give RDM more damage than SMN, then SMN just becomes a caster with less damage than a rdm, a worse res than rdm, worse utility than a rdm, and arguably a worse party buff as well. There is functionally no reason to bring SMN for anything at that point.

At least SMN would still have a good toolkit, party buffs, party regen, personal mitigation, mobility and a back up res.

[FireMage]

I meant from a viability standpoint. If you give RDM more damage than SMN, then SMN just becomes a caster with less damage than a rdm, a worse res than rdm, worse utility than a rdm, and arguably a worse party buff as well. There is functionally no reason to bring SMN for anything at that point.

Other than flavor preference (or unable to handle a complicated Job), which is kind of the point...

See XIV wants to satisfy the following: All Jobs are viable. But they also should be satisfying the following: Jobs are balanced. The only real way to achieve both is too make it so the gap before lowest amd highest Jobs is negligible, while maintaining proper balance which demands that their be gaps based on several factors. The way to resolve this is mini tiers based on all the factors of difficulty (which in actuality is the only true tax). Which be basically come out to be BLM > MNK/NIN/DRG/SAM > RPR/RDM > BRD/DNC > SMN/MCH. This is the only real solution for how the Jobs currently are

[Avoidy]

You really wanna compare how many times RDM have to be on melee range vs. how many times SMN have to be on melee range? RDM doesnt go melee range only to do its combo. We do have 2 charges of Corps-a-corps and Engagement/Displacement, its an oGCD melee range skill.

I mean, on that same token I could ask if you *really* want to compare verraise to having one solid res that burns your swiftcast and results in a gimped rotation for the entire fight.

But nah, I don't want to do that, because that wasn't my main point. My point's never even been about job difficulty, because I'll agree that SMN is streamlined as hell. But it should still do more damage than RDM, because without that damage difference, there's no viable reason for it to exist, and it's just a worse RDM in every conceivable way. This is my main point. I only nitpicked because I found it amusing to watch you talk about melee range and then immediately bring up ifrit.

At least SMN would still have a good toolkit, party buffs, personal mitigation, mobility and a back up res.

RDM would have a better party buff, better personal mitigation, and a better res. Nobody would be out here like "damn, SMN really lags behind on everything, but boy can it walk! Let's bring it anyway!" We literally saw this last tier before the devs gave it potency buffs, and SMN was dumpstered.

Other than flavor preference (or unable to handle a complicated Job), which is kind of the point...

When I said "bring along," I meant for parties to want them in their groups. No group is going to care about your personal flavor preference when they address viability. It's great if people still want to play the job even if it's broken in a bad way, but we've seen how pf just bans jobs from their groups. Btw, loving how when smn becomes not-viable, it's fine "because people will still play it for fun," but when rdm is on the bottom it's not fine and needs to be addressed immediately.

The way to resolve this is mini tiers based on all the factors of difficulty (which in actuality is the only true tax). Which be basically come out to be BLM > MNK/NIN/DRG/SAM > RPR/RDM > BRD/DNC > SMN/MCH. This is the only real solution for how the Jobs currently are

And I disagree with your proposed solution, for reasons others have already stated. Difficulty is subjective, the people who played these jobs never asked for them to be dumbed down, and RDM already has utility factors that would make people bring it along even if it had slightly lower damage than a SMN. In your tier list, SMN is completely dumpstered because now it's just a shitty damage dealer that provides less utility. And MCH is already a dumpster fire situation so I won't get into that.

I feel like I'm just going in circles at this point. I'll never see subjective difficulty as a solid measurement for how much damage a job should do. You've gotta address incomparables like party utility or you create situations where certain jobs get completely left behind.