G-give it Back T---T; !! (Scholar Edition)

[ty_taurus]

I don't think this is really true.

In your examples, could a player get through the entire game without ever dealing damage to anything at any point at all? Was there no content that was meant to be done solo, even early level questing? I mean I'm sure you absolutely could if you got a player to party with you and clear any solo enemies for you. I'm not super familiar with either, so I don't know if there even was instance duties of any kind. But is that a really feasible for the average player in those cases? Would it be normal for a healer player to ask another player to defeat enemies for them?

Still, the point stands that a healer role not built around DPSing and DPS rotations is something entirely doable in our reality in games that revolve around combat.

And you could say the same of tanks, no? Why do tanks need to do any damage? Aggro is a metric that can be directly interacted with through actions. We even had an action like that on Paladin called Flash. Why isn't the tank role like Sentinel in FFXIII, where their only actions are provoking and defending? Countering was a thing, but you still need to get hit first to do it. FFXIII's roles are very bare-bones in general because the idea was about swapping those roles mid combat, but it does prove that you can have a tank that does no direct damage at all and still function perfectly fine. If it's reasonable to want healers to not have any DPS responsibility, then it is just as reasonable to want the same for tanks. And if the goal is to balance the roles, if you're going to do one that way, I feel like you should do the other that way as well.

I'm not saying anyone is directly asking for that right here. I'm just saying that because both are similar in that they are not DPS jobs, that they should approach DPS responsibilities the same way. Lean into it, or lean away from it. It doesn't make sense to have one lean one way while the other leans the opposite way.