For those who main/semi-main a DPS (e.g. DNC, RDM) but like Healers...

[Post]

I feel more like a support when I'm playing a tank than when I'm playing p. Ranged nowadays, because I have ways to support people more often than once every minute to two minutes. Namely, the short tank cooldowns that can be used on others. Often makes tanks feel equivalent to or more like healers than healers do, too.

Additionally, I barely have to consider boss or trash positioning with everyone's uniform aoe shapes, giant hitboxes, True North and bosses auto-centering, nor is mitigation dynamic among the tank roles. Since ShB, boss enmity is only a consideration when the boss forces swaps more often than once a minute (not since encounters from 3.4) or a tank dies, and dungeon enmity can't even be disrupted by an errant Regen while pulling anymore. As far as tank jobs, you learn one and you basically know em all, so, "focusing on tanking" is not what I'm doing while I'm tanking.

With the removal of TP and the irrelevance of Enmity and MP, there's no resources to provide other jobs with, and more than half the jobs buff everyone's damage every 2 minutes so that feels more like an encounter mechanic than a job design focus at this point to me.

Meaningful support has become limited to helping a player survive a hit, and half of the healers can't even do that on demand. The p. Ranged 'support' have had that mostly relegated to their 90 sec job-flavoured role action, and it's the same reason why MCH and BRD were buffed to have Dismantle and AoE Minuet to compete.

[Shurrikhan]

The supposed support role is P.Ranged.

Was*

And... hardly even then. Apart from Dismantle, Warden's, and later Minne, their sole "support" feature was "removes the arbitrary encounter play-time limitations that were added to the game with the express intention of making you need a Physical Ranged". You may as well call the coin-insert on an Arcade shooter (that you couldn't play without even when owning the game and playing it at home) "Support".

And even that wasn't unique to them. On CD (same as Refresh and Tactician come StB), all melee could give TP, and all Casters could trade away MP. Pound for pound, NIN had more support tools than Machinist before both were de-tooled.

As for WOW, they've more recently moved towards 'scripted big damage moments' too. Difference is, they have smaller ticking instances between those big blasts. For example, a boss I hated reclearing each week from the first raid in DF, Terros. Players are marked with markers, and they place earth spikes after a few seconds. While these spikes are out, they pulse damage on higher difficulties, and the longer the fight goes, the more spikes come out (on heroic, it was 5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8, enrage, iirc). To clear the spikes, the tanks aim a line-Tankbuster through the spikes to crack them. Doing so, however, causes the spikes to explode for a much larger amount of raidwide damage. Thus, there's 'constant pressure' from the ticking, and then big 'scripted moment of big HPS needed' to plan your big cooldowns around, like Aura Mastery, Spirit Link, Tranquility, etc. We've got the second half, but not the first half. Additionally, WOW's healers are designed around having basically zero spammable AOE. Closest there is to 'spammable AOE heal' is Chain Heal, and that eats your MP bar like nothing else. I expect that, if we dropped a WOW fight into FFXIV wholesale, we'd fold it's HPS requirements like a pretzel, because we can just dump AOE healing whenever we like. To have 'WOW style model', play WHM, but unbind Medica 1/2/Cure3 from your bar, and only AOE heal with Rapture, that's pretty close to what we'd end up with.

WoW has a surprising number of (more polished) analogs to old T8, whereby you have to balance short- and long-term dangers. I actually really enjoy that model, which is probably why I didn't hate Terros despite his bland aesthetic.

Also, I saw some 'very good at game' WOW healers complaining about healer design over there, saying it's getting too focused on 'use mit on big raidwide'. Apparently, having a raidwide that blasts you from 100% down to like 20% is not fun, who knew

I feel like those complaints are usually for when (A) that 20% leftover HP is even with said mitigation, (B) there's also a DoT that ticks for ~20% of HP at the same time, or (C) you literally need that mitigation to have any chance of healers not going oom before end of fight and causing a wipe.

And again, I'd say to that 'why add a Support role and screw up the matchmaking/queue times, when we could just make the 'already kinda heavy on support' Jobs like DNC be 'even more supporty'?

Aye. This.

[ForsakenRoe]

WoW

Ah, should have figured you've played, but I'll leave it there for context for anyone who hasn't. I ended up playing tank a lot more over there (friend group needed a reliable tank for M+) which probably goes to explain why I found the 'locked in place' bosses (Terros, Sennarth to an extent, Dathea) kinda ehh, and Kurog/Broodkeeper (move around the arena, position boss, etc) very fun and interesting. Terros reclears in pugs sucked because people, even with an addon telling them which way to move to place their spike, did not place their spike well, and we'd either have some left over (can't hit em with the line cos they're so out of position), or far too many spikes being broken all at once (instantly killing people due to the big burst damage). I did find that it happened less often in Heroic than Normal, but still often enough to get annoying. On the plus side, I got VERY good at aiming the line with such precision as to clip the exact number of spikes I wanted, even in situations that looked like they'd be blowing up far too many

The year-long wait for 7.0 might give me a good reason to go back again. Or to max in OSRS, one of the two

Actually while I'm thinking about WOW: Consider how much 'support' tools Prot Paladin has, despite being a 'tank' not a 'support': can give physical/magical immunity to an ally (depending on talents), can remove movespeed debuffs (which includes removing nasty DOTs, if said DOTs have any effect on your movespeed) for an ally or self with Freedom (or both with a talent), can give 'Cover' to an ally with Sacrifice, can give offhealing with Word of Glory, can silence with Rebuke or Avenger's Shield, can AOE silence thanks to Divine Toll (to my knowledge only Boomkins can also do this), can stun with HOJ, can slow enemies with a talented Consecrate, can full heal someone (probably yourself, but can clutch) with Lay On Hands, can CC specific things with Turn Evil, Repentance, or just incapacitate for a few seconds with Blinding Light... Probably a fair few more I can't remember. Anyway, point is, all of this and it's a 'tank'. How much more would it need for Blizzard to consider it a 'support role', I wonder

[Shurrikhan]

Ah, should have figured you've played, but I'll leave it there for context for anyone who hasn't. I ended up playing tank a lot more over there (friend group needed a reliable tank for M+) which probably goes to explain why I found the 'locked in place' bosses (Terros, Sennarth to an extent, Dathea) kinda ehh, and Kurog/Broodkeeper (move around the arena, position boss, etc) very fun and interesting.

Oh, for sure, on tanks, Terros is just another Tree-Boss / T10S equivalent, or worse, and I hate the trend of having more and more bosses that give tanks no agency/reward for moving them correctly both here and there. >.>
I just like the balancing-dangers model in a general sense. (See also DF's first "Council" fight, sorta, or the canisters boss in Castle Nathria (Invernia or w/e?), etc.)

Consider how much 'support' tools Prot Paladin has, despite being a 'tank' not a 'support'

I have definitely heard people refer to any sort of Paladin (but especially Prot or Ret) as 'supports'. While AugVoker has redefined its ceiling, the sheer amount of utility those guys carry is still no joke. It's just that (apart from AugVoker) "support(ive)" there is a profile description like "Bursty af", rather than a Role description.

_______________

Edit:

I would not mind it if jobs were instead able to take on a number of far more finely sliced roles like Defender, Sentinel, Vanguard, Enforcer, Skirmisher, Fielder, Reserve, Striker, Assassin, Saboteur, Controller, Synergist, Medic, etc., and we just named ourselves according to the primary slice of tasks we intended to purpose our kit towards. I just think that so long as Roles are meant to actually lend themselves to any sort of matchmaking, we aren't really going to see more than the trinity act as any sort of useful descriptors (since anything else is just like... an extra dimension to that initial spectrum/trinity, rather than anything essential).

For instance, assuming a more job-identity-first approach to revitalizing each job, I'd likely just refer to myself as a "Monk" when shouting for a group, but if a party were looking for a Vanguard, Enforcer, Skirmisher, Striker, Reserve, or Saboteur, I'd be able to play in that way well enough to throw my hat in the ring.

[ASkellington]

Was*

Is. I already mentioned what they lost and I also mentioned they could stand to add more support tools to them.

The point of my post is that 1. We don't need ANOTHER ROLE labeled support when you can make P.Ranged which was historically the support role more supporty and 2. even if you did make them more supporty, I still wouldn't main one and would be wanting my healers fixed.

[Renathras]

Look, Reddit is no nicer to healers.
...
Opposition to how healers play right now... is not abnormal,

Actually, Reddit IS nicer to healers. There is a far more diverse view there than here. Probably because there are far more posters there, and there seems to be a more general audience. Oh, there are a LOT of people there, too, that hate current Healer design and want it changed (like the people here), but also a lot that are more neutral to it, and some that actually prefer it as it is. So it seems that the view here is not universal.

NOTE: I didn't use the word "majority" in that paragraph.

Opposition to healers is not abnormal. Where did I say it was?

I'm pointing out that NOT being opposed to healers as they are right now is ALSO not abnormal. That it is here is one of the reasons to point to this place being an echo chamber.

.

WHM:

Right...? But that's what I'm saying, no heal costs less than Glare. Casting Cure 1 (or Esuna, depending on how and if we Trait it to Esuna or Cure 2 or not) or Regen would be the same MP cost as Glares. So you're only saving MP based specifically on how many Miseries you cast per minute. The maximum savings, assuming you still get one Misery from 3 Solace/Raptures (so that changes nothing and still takes 4 GCDs per minute) is that you are left with 20 - 2 (for Dias) GCDs per minute (24 total, 3 Solace/Rapture, 1 Misery associated with those, 2 Dias; leaves 18). For every 3 of those you fill with a GCD heal, you get 1 Misery. 18 / 4 = 4.5, meaning you get, on average, 4.5 extra Misery casts per minute. Given foregoing Glares to get there, that's the equivalent of 400 x 4.5 or 1800 (funny, that) MP in savings. (This is casting 12 Cure 1s + 4 Misery and the extras are split over every 2 minutes, 2 Cure 1s in the first minute and the other Cure 1 plus the Misery in the second minute.)

But, how do you generate those Miseries? Well, you can cast Cure 1/Cursuna/Regen over and over. That results in a 1800 MP gain per minute. Which, for reference, is not even enough to cast a Raise. Not sure that's "gamebreaking". But that's if you cast your cheapest healing spell over and over. If you cast Cure 2, you're now losing MP per minute. Each Cure 2 cast is 1000 MP, or 600 more than Glare/Cure 1/Regen. And you're casting 12 of those per minute, meaning -600 x 12 = -7,200. -7,200 + 1,800 = -5,400. That's a MP deficit, not an MP gain. Medica 1 is slightly better (900 MP so -500 per cast), Medica 2 slightly worse and Cure 3 significantly worse.

Point is, at best, you're generating enough MP for 3/4ths of a Raise, which is hardly gamebreaking, and at the worst, you're just refunding a small portion of your much higher MP burn from casting your higher expense heals. The reality, of course, is that people would mix it up a bit, and that MP management RIGHT NOW isn't a thing. So there's no logical way that this would be broken or overpowered. The only argument is if you're having to cast lots of Raises, but WHM is already the Job that has 2 Thin Air charges, and most Healers can easily sit around 90-100% MP all the time in the game at present. Overcapping MP isn't helping you, so often that MP "savings" is just going to be wasted, not powerful.

Again, the main issue with it I can see is that it would make Glare entirely pointless to cast unless you just feel like it. A solution could be to slightly increase Glare's damage so it's a slight DPS gain, but meh.

Personally, if "heal by doing damage" is something we're doing under this proposed system - which we are, with SGE - then "damage by doing healing" under this same system seems like the proper inverse so both playstyles are represented. The only issue comes down to tuning so they do similar levels of damage and healing to each other, but no, that's not broken in any way.

Think about it, in the WORST case scenario - that you never touch Glare and exclusively keep Regen rolling on all party members, maintain Dia uptime, and fill dead GCDs with Cure 1 spot healing, you probably wouldn't even be touching Cure 1 much since you'd be rolling HoTs on people like a WoW Druid in raids (which is a playstyle I always enjoyed, so not seeing the problem there) - isn't that WAY more active than WHM is now? You're actively rolling through party member targets, through the boss, and you're using at least three GCDs for the majority of your casts unlike the complaint right now you're using just Glare. Casting more than 1 Medica 2 per minute would be an MP loss: 2400 - 1800 = 600 MP net loss.

Moreover, did you read SGE? It's going to be doing the opposite of this. The only issue here comes from proper numbers tuning and, again, encounters actually requiring consistent healing, something you agreed was a needed change.

So no. That's not broken. It's a good idea. Hard go. Yes.

(Another alternative I once saw presented is make Glare nourish the Blood Lily, so you have a semi-combo of Glare Glare Glare Misery, which was proposed to break up the Glare spam. Not sure if that one's good or bad, but it and this would conflict so...)

.

SCH/AST:

Are you missing the part where every healer Job works differently? Because that's the point of the entire proposal and I've said it over and over again...

.

WoW: Yes, something FFXIV USED to have back in ARR. MP costs of spells were, once upon a time, RELEVANT. We did, in fact, swap from one design paradigm to another, roughly around SB. It's also why WHM sucked so much in SB, because it wasn't given the oGCD healing tools to make the transition. The only reason ShB/EW worked is because they shoehorned Solace/Rapture/Misery in as a "pseudo-oGCD GCD" to try and merge the two systems.

EDIT:

...

Answer the damned question or shut the hell up about it. I'm tired of you derailing and wafting over this stupidity and trying to use it in some weird technicality to "win".

If a Support role was added to the game: Would you at all be interested in playing it?

It's a yes or no question. And if you won't answer it, as I said in the post before, I'm done beating the dead animal.

Actually? You know what? Duck it. I don't give a damn anymore. You can answer or not, I legitimately don't care and won't respond any more to you on this derail.

.

You. Are. Wrong. Say it with me.

The supposed support role is P.Ranged.

They were.

For some reason, when ShB hit, the Devs decided Support was bad, so stripped BRD and MCH of their support. Then they promptly introduced DNC as a Support. Then BRDs were mad so they gave them some of theirs back, but it's all basically the same type of thing. And then nerfed AST cards into being just another form of the same thing. It's all "+X% damage" just through different proxies.

As to your points:

1: That's why I think the 4 Healers Model is the answer.
2: Agreed, it's also why I encourage changes to encounter design.
3: Also agreed, it's why I think non-Healer HEALING should be nerfed.
4: See 2.
5: See 1, and to an extent, 2 and 3 both.
6: See 1; if the Healers actually were different, there would also be different levels of damage tools between them (e.g. the SGE proposal would play like RDM without melee attacks, the SCH one would be the same damage profile it had in SB), meaning players who find something like current WHM boring but still want to play a Healer, just with more damage abilities for solo or downtime would have those options.

This has been said before as well. The conversation has spiraled (because of course it did), but the original post was about what if we had a 4th role, "Support," that was more support-y than the current physical ranged, offering more buffs and more utility. I'm not sure what other context would apply to this role, but I assume it would have less damage than even Bards and Dancers have now in exchange for that higher support potential while still having things like a rotation and active gameplay. I presume the intent of the entire thread was to try and get people in favor of expanding supports so that we'd leave the real healers alone.

You assume...incorrectly (a surprise to no one).

Note I wasn't even the one that brought up Support as a fourth role:

Aye Square, give us healer RDM specs and support DPS Astrologian specs. Shake it up a bit, hahah.

Vetch brought up the concept, which I agreed with later (in one of the few posts I make around here that gets a lot of Likes, btw), and then it was third-ed by someone else:

I will die on the hill of my stance.

Support could, and should, be its own role. Rift had this, and it to this day baffles me that no other mmo replicates it.

Meaning it can't have been my intention with the thread, because I wasn't the one that even brought it up.

Maybe, Ty, you should be more careful about assuming other people's intentions...

Not that I suspect you care at this point, but if you do:

What would make a Support role different than PRanged is that it would actually be...well, Support. PRanged isn't even consistently supportive (MCH doesn't have anything itself other than Dismantle; TrubaticianSamba is just the Ranged's version of Feint/Addle, so no more "support" than Casters and Melee, it's just more generalized. It's like comparing AST ShB/EW cards to AST HW/SB cards. Clearly they're different - everyone complaints about them being different all the time here, so I don't think I need to hash that one out - and then you have DNC and BRD being ShB/EW card-like.

While the Devs COULD make them into an actual Support role, they've thus far declined to really do so. Nothing like Bole or CC (lol?) or TP/MP regen (lol..?). Hell, look at ARR BRD. Even ARR NIN. Even SB BLM with that MP transfer ability had more of a support capability than modern BRD does. DNC's only unique thing is Curing Waltz. Otherwise it's a targeted BRD song that's up 100% of the time. Hell, look at PvP AST's cards.

Damage buffing might be considered support more if, as Askellington said, it wasn't something that so many Jobs do to the point it's more a combat mechanic than support (and is done on a rote timer, not in reaction or preaction to any encounter abilities themselves).

.

Anyway, I didn't start this thread with any intent of discussing Support as a role or subrole or half-role or people moving roles or anything else.

I was actually trying to see what people like about specific DPS Jobs SPECIFICALLY so I could consider how to add that in a more robust way to my Healer Job design proposals. Knowing what people find enjoyable is part of making a design that people would find enjoyable. Everyone knows what THEY like. What they need to do to be good designers is to see what OTHER people like, and then make proposals that incorporate those things.

It's why echo chambers are so bad for good design, because all they do is tell you over and over something you already think is true, but they aren't telling you what everyone else who isn't part of the echo chamber thinks.

And it's why I actually ask questions like this. Because instead of having decided how everyone should enjoy playing (and berating them if they do not), I actually want to see how everyone enjoys playing and then propose a set of healer Job designs where at least one appeals to each type. It's really that simple.

[ForsakenRoe]

WHM MP

The changes to WHM after 6.0 and it's horrid MP economy, was to make Misery damage neutral, and reduce the Lily charge time to 20s, incentivizing us to use 4 MP-free GCDs per minute, which saves us 1600 MP. This change singlehandedly moved WHM from 'it needs like 800+ Piety to not feel like ass' to 'it can run base Piety comfortably (340)'. To say '1800 MP per min won't make or break anything' is a fundamental misunderstanding of what 'a gamebreaking amount of MP economy' is. A change like this, and you'd put WHM into the AST world of 'I prefer to meld SpellSpeed even over Crit, because I have so much excess MP in my economy I literally cannot spend it fast enough!' Admittedly, it'd be pretty funny, but the fact it'd cause such a shift in gearing should be giving pause for thought about how 'small' the change really is (or isn't, as the case happens to be). For reference, AST's Astrodyne gives 1500MP over it's duration, and is available after 90s worth of cards. And the fact AST has that extra MP source is enough to cause the 'I'd rather meld Spellspeed' effect. In fact, it's possible that given your change gives 1800 per 60s instead of AST's current 1500 per 90s (or 1000 per 60s for easier comparison), not only would WHM be melding Spellspeed, it'd likely be looking for it on gear too!

And no, I don't think I'd personally find 'use Regen on every raid member, one at a time, with a GCD gap every 3 placed to fire a Misery' fun. This would incentivize just spamming out Regens on people who don't need them/won't need them, literal 100% overheal, and being told 'its okay, you still get to do the same damage as someone who's putting thought into who to heal and when'. I struggle to believe it, but I think you have just tried to make 'Cure1 spammer' not only viable at endgame, but also equally optimal, that's almost an accomplishment in it's own right (but not one to be proud of)

[Renathras]

...

Wait, you're melding Piety right now?

I don't run out of MP on WHM right now as it is. I press Lucid on CD once per minute and have infinite MP. I'm not sure how this changes it. "You can meld more spellspeed to increase your cast rate since your MP pool can support it" - wait, so this would lead to GEARING OPTIONS instead of just the Crit >>>> all meta we've had for 3 years now?

...isn't that good?

And, further, that AST already is in this state? So...how's that gamebreaking, exactly? And if AST is already broken to that level, and AST and WHM are supposed to be peer competitors, shouldn't WHM share that trait? (Astrodyne is worth less MP, but also recall that AST's GCD heals other than Benefic/Aspected Benefic also cost less MP than WHM's equivalents, in some cases, by quite a lot, like Benefic 2 being 30% less MP than Cure 2...)

As to the last, considering Cure 1 won't exist anymore, Cure 1 spammer won't be possible anyway...

EDIT:

...

Yeah, the Devs being lazy is part of the problem, though.

1: I'll get to that.
2 + 5: Possible.
3: Lol, fair.
6: Disagree. This is the exact OPPOSITE of SMN.

In the case of SMN, the Job was changed, leaving people who played it and liked it homeless. Here, WHM would be remaining the same. If anything, your argument would be one against changing ANY of the Healers, not an argument against leaving one the same. You say "deserve to be given something" because you and I disagree on what that is. To me, the changes you guys want are a punishment, not a reward. A penalty, not a gift. To my way of thinking, WHM in this idea is the only one not being hurt.

.

Post said that, not me.

Oh, sorry. I do agree with it, though.

[ASkellington]

They were.

For some reason, when ShB hit, the Devs decided Support was bad, so stripped BRD and MCH of their support. Then they promptly introduced DNC as a Support. Then BRDs were mad so they gave them some of theirs back, but it's all basically the same type of thing. And then nerfed AST cards into being just another form of the same thing. It's all "+X% damage" just through different proxies.

The devs decided Support was bad because they don't want to deal with the balancing nightmare. I understand the work load, but they lost any and all sympathy the moment they thought "removing it all" was the best course of action. It wasn't for anyone BUT them. Doubly so because they gave nothing as an alternative.

1. No its not. See 6.
2 + 5. I don't see it happening because SE doesn't know how to design encounters that promote proper healing checks or unscripted damage or are afraid of scaring away healer mains as if the vast majority of us who have this issue aren't prepared for them.
3. Good luck convincing WAR.
6. And the reason why your 4 healers model doesn't work is because you do nothing to address WHM Veterans other than "go play another job". That's not fair. SMN had that happen to them, and so did AST. TWICE. No. WHM mains deserve to be given something too.

Now I'll agree that all 4 healers should be different from one another. And WHM should remain an ease of access healer in comparison to the other 3. That does not mean, however it shouldn't get something for WHM mains and veteran healers something extra other than boring game play.

Damage buffing might be considered support more if, as Askellington said, it wasn't something that so many Jobs do to the point it's more a combat mechanic than support (and is done on a rote timer, not in reaction or preaction to any encounter abilities themselves).

@Post said that, not me.

[ForsakenRoe]

No, I'm not melding Piety right now, I do have some from gear, but that is because I'm not one of those Balance-goers who is using an un-upgraded tome ring in order to avoid the stat entirely.

My point is that we don't meld SPS now as WHM because we cannot support the extra MP burden without some Piety melded, and since PIE is a dead stat damagewise, it's not worth the loss in other stats like Crit. A change like this would provide the MP needed to support that extra SPS, without the downside of the dead statbudget of PIE. This could be a good thing if done right, As AST is at a point where you can go for the fast build or a slower build because the two are competitive with one another. The change you propose is to the extreme where SPS would start to dwarf Crit, and it wouldn't 'solve' the issue we have now, just change the target stat from Crit to SPS. In fact, where we currently aim for Crit>Det on gear, it'd likely be changed to SPS>Crit (so we're still getting Crit on gear anyway, yipee). The ONE upside I'd see is that, if we have such a diminished desire to get Direct Hit on our melds thanks to SPS being so much better, it'd lead to our Miserys being way less swingy in their damage (only being subject to crit variance, rather than crit+dhit massive hits vs the ever infuriating 'noodle' hit)

(Astrodyne is worth less MP, but also recall that AST's GCD heals other than Benefic/Aspected Benefic also cost less MP than WHM's equivalents, in some cases, by quite a lot, like Benefic 2 being 30% less MP than Cure 2...)

Also recall that AST has so many tools to use that are OGCD (the equivalent of it's 'Lilies' as it were), if it has to use (asp)Helios/Benefic 2 something's gone horribly wrong (or it's trying to make use of Neutral Sect). Compare Malefic and Glare, and you see they're both 400mp cost, so my using Astrodyne as a yardstick by which to measure how massive an impact this change would have, I'd say, makes sense.

As for 'cure1 spammer won't be possible'

Right...? But that's what I'm saying, no heal costs less than Glare. Casting Cure 1 (or Esuna, depending on how and if we Trait it to Esuna or Cure 2 or not) or Regen would be the same MP cost as Glares.

Apparently by this, Cure 1 could A: become Esuna via trait, presumably keeping it's heal and gaining debuff removal properties, B: become Cure 2 via trait, or C: remain as Cure 1, due to the 'or not' at the end of the bracketed section. Thus, Cure 1 spammer would be 'maybe possible, depending on what the devs do to Cure 1 with traits or lack thereof'

Alternatively, we can ignore all that and I'll just amend my statement. 'You have just made 'random target Regen spam' as damage-optimal as someone who's going full tryhard, as long as Regen Ronald remembers to use Misery after every 3rd Regen. This is abhorrent game design.' That better and/or more clear?

Edit: rereading before bed and I saw this one and just... lmao

Again, the main issue with it I can see is that it would make Glare entirely pointless to cast unless you just feel like it. A solution could be to slightly increase Glare's damage so it's a slight DPS gain, but meh.

So now, with this line, you've made Misery less potency than the 4 Glares lost to prepare and use it. Which puts WHM back where it was in SHB: with people actively avoiding using the Lily system as much as they can (outside of movement where they're forced to use something for that GCD, or downtimes), and undone the whole point of making the heal GCDs give Blood Lily (to make them damage neutral, because now they're not). But at least it undoes the SPS issue, since everyone'd be using Glare and ignoring prepping Misery, so they wouldn't be getting all the MP-Free GCDs. Actually, given that SHB WHM had 'Thin Air, but it lasts 6 GCDs', maybe it's more accurate to say we'd be back to 6.0 WHM. Time really is a circle, huh?