Would SCH's SB kit be "good enough" now?

[AmiableApkallu]

That SB SCH, if implemented exactly as it was into the game now, would not end complaints about SCH and would engender additional requests for further changes.
...which, don't get me wrong, isn't a terrible thing.

But it's a different thing than saying that SB SCH was the height of healer and a thing to strive for.

It's perfectly possible that something can

• "[be] the height of healers" (that we've seen so far) and
• "a thing to strive for" (because it's better than what we have now) and
• "engender additional requests for further changes" (because it still falls short of its Platonic ideal).

[ForsakenRoe]

Y'know, I wonder now the topic has been raised: If SB SCH was to return exactly as it was back then, would it actually be stronger at healing compared to now?

I don't mean mitigation, the lack of Expedient and Seraph means it would have less mit options, that's not even a contest. But Embrace was stronger back then, and Rouse still existed. It could argued that Seraph is just Rouse with a pretty VFX, but Rouse also affected OGCDs like Whispering Dawn. In terms of pure HPS throughput, I wonder if SCH back then was actually more 'pure healer' material than it is now?

Then again, we'd lose the trait for Soil to make it heal over time. So maybe it's actually a case of 'it has the same throughput now as back then, but redistributed'. In which case I have to ask, why on earth did they move it from a thematic source (the fairy) to a not-so-thematic source (the bubble)?

It's perfectly possible that something can

If we were to get SB AST cards back (ie varied effects), then it has to be as the exact effects, potencies, etc as back then, didn't you know? It's either 'exactly as it was' or 'not at all and you're stuck with EW design', the idea of 'what if we took the SB idea as a baseline and built off it in a different direction' is not allowed

[Renathras]

Y'know, I wonder now the topic has been raised: If SB SCH was to return exactly as it was back then, would it actually be stronger at healing compared to now?

I don't mean mitigation, the lack of Expedient and Seraph means it would have less mit options, that's not even a contest. But Embrace was stronger back then, and Rouse still existed. It could argued that Seraph is just Rouse with a pretty VFX, but Rouse also affected OGCDs like Whispering Dawn. In terms of pure HPS throughput, I wonder if SCH back then was actually more 'pure healer' material than it is now?

Then again, we'd lose the trait for Soil to make it heal over time. So maybe it's actually a case of 'it has the same throughput now as back then, but redistributed'. In which case I have to ask, why on earth did they move it from a thematic source (the fairy) to a not-so-thematic source (the bubble)?

This is actually kinda what I was getting at, and my view as well that it would more be things redistributed than throughput changes. Same on the DPS side, with the optimal DPS being comparable, just more moving pieces to get there.

[ty_taurus]

That SB SCH, if implemented exactly as it was into the game now, would not end complaints about SCH and would engender additional requests for further changes.
...which, don't get me wrong, isn't a terrible thing.

But it's a different thing than saying that SB SCH was the height of healer and a thing to strive for.

But that's exactly why I was adding context to my answer to begin with. A simple "yes" or "no" to your original question wouldn't give you that answer. If we were to rank each iteration of Scholar by expansion in order of weakest to strongest, we would probably get something that looks like this:

ShB > EW >>>>> ARR >> HW = SB (I'm leaving HW and SB at the top as even because I think that's something you'd see more debate about, but that most who have experienced all iterations of Scholar would probably agree are in the top two spots)

So yes, going back to Stormblood while simply adding the components gained through Shadowbringers and Endwalker would be a much better outcome than we have currently. But the thing is, we know that as an MMO, this game will change over time, and that every job will undergo change with each new expansion. The hope is that every change will improve upon each jobs gameplay--that each expansion will make your favorite job better and better. While that is a difficult standard to meet time after time, we do see jobs that have succeeded at this, like Black Mage. By the time Dawntrail releases, we'll have gone 5 years of seeing our job not only not improve, but actively get worse. Going back to the highest point it was at in the past would be fantastic news, but it also means that we've been denied not only that 5 years of actual growth and improvement, but we'll go through another 3 years having seen no real progress for Scholar--nearly a decade of never getting to see that improvement.

[IDontPetLalas]

as Ty said why would someone bring back a job exactly as it was into today's context? That would be acting as those jobs existed in a vacuum and didn't interact with other job, which is not the case.

I would also agree that changes are made in theory with the goal of making jobs better each time, I don't even have any issue if an individual iteration makes changes worse since no development team is ever going to be perfect BUT that is reliant on the cadence of changes being on an acceptable time span- again, as Ty pointed out, for SCH, and I would say for other healers- that time span is far from acceptable for me. i would rather that SE made some smaller changes to jobs, obtained some feedback and adjusted accordingly, more frequently.

Unfortunately with their team or patch cycle approach I have my doubts they'll do that.

[Absurdity]

Y'know, I wonder now the topic has been raised: If SB SCH was to return exactly as it was back then, would it actually be stronger at healing compared to now?

I don't mean mitigation, the lack of Expedient and Seraph means it would have less mit options, that's not even a contest. But Embrace was stronger back then, and Rouse still existed. It could argued that Seraph is just Rouse with a pretty VFX, but Rouse also affected OGCDs like Whispering Dawn. In terms of pure HPS throughput, I wonder if SCH back then was actually more 'pure healer' material than it is now?

Then again, we'd lose the trait for Soil to make it heal over time. So maybe it's actually a case of 'it has the same throughput now as back then, but redistributed'. In which case I have to ask, why on earth did they move it from a thematic source (the fairy) to a not-so-thematic source (the bubble)?

Actually a pretty good question.

Old Adloquium: 300 cure potency + 100% healing as barrier
Current Adloquium: 300 cure potency + 180% healing as barrier

Old Succor: 150 cure potency + 150% healing as barrier
Current Succor: 200 cure potency + 160% healing as barrier

However,
Old Indomitability: 500 cure potency
Current Indomitability: 400 cure potency

Old Embrace: 250 cure potency
Current Embrace: 180 cure potency

Old Fey Union: 480 cure potency
Current Fey Union: 300 cure potency

Old Fey Illumination: +10% increased healing magic potency
Old Fey Covenant: +20% magic defense (which according to an old SCH guide amounted to approximately 6-7% for DPS, 9-10% for Healers and Casters and about 17% for Tanks)
Current Fey Illumination: +10% increased healing magic potency and 5% magic mitigation

Not much of a difference here besides Fey Covenant's uneven mitigation, but having them as separate abilities does add some flexibility.

And of course
Old Rouse: +40% healing magic potency, lasts 20 seconds just like Seraph but only on a 60 seconds cooldown.

The big question is what the current Faerie's stat scaling is, back in Stormblood it was about 70% of the SCH's stats. I've seen some claims that it's close to 1:1 now which would mean that the potencies betweeen back then and now are roughly the same.

[TheDustyOne]

I'm a little late to the discussion, but figure I'd add my 2 cents, even if it's similar to what's already been said here.

Yes, SB SCH would be good enough for me, although I agree with Ty that, if it was brought back without any changes, we effectively spent the last 4-5 years going in a circle, and ideally, I still want Square to rethink how healers are designed so as to better fit the current combat system and content.

I like SB SCH, but it still had some clunk and annoyances attached, some since fixed, many still around. It was easy to wiff Bane and Deployment as the status effects didn't apply immediately after the cast, so there was an awkward delay with button presses to make sure that you could properly spread your DoTs or Shield, Dissipation used to not resummon the fairy, so it was better to not use it outside emergencies, and of course, we still have ghosting issues and fairy tethers breaking from using other fairy actions.

But despite that, I want multiple DoTs again with different refresh timers, I want to spread my DoTs again, I'd like an instant cast DoT that acts as more of a movement and weaving tool (Miasma II), I'd like some damage cooldowns that also have some defensive properties (Shadowflare applying Slow), I want the Aetherflow cooldown to be reduced when I use an Aetherflow ability, I'd like for Eos and Selene to be separate again with unique skills rather than just a glamour.

Even if I have other ideas on how I'd design SCH myself, I'd be happy with SB SCH.

[Renathras]

Yes, SB SCH would be good enough for me,
...
Even if I have other ideas on how I'd design SCH myself, I'd be happy with SB SCH.

Fair enough.

Honestly, I was genuinely surprised by how many people DIDN'T say this. Given how much and often it's lauded, I thought may would say just what you did - "I'd 1000% take it in a heartbeat and enjoy it, though I do think it should advance with time, too". I was honestly surprised most didn't, which makes me think that SB SCH lives in people's heads as a monument to greatness, but doesn't exactly live up to that in truth when people think about it.

Anyway, thanks for the reply.

[5trange]

Uh, I don't want to misinterpret your statement, but I seriously had to question your understanding of the responses you received. Even though I know you have a reputation (which I shall be able to verify first-hand now), I will try to explain myself in a clear fashion.

People not saying outright "sure, I'd go back instantly", doesn't mean people wouldn't love to go back to Stormblood. The truth is it's disingenuous to say "teleport a lvl. 70 SB Scholar into lvl. 90 EW expansion" and call it a day. It's a silly statement per se — although the enthusiasm SCH players displayed at the idea of having their old tools back should have been quite telling! If you read the answers carefully, most people absolutely had the expected enthusiasm in wanting the Stormblood kit back, they just asked for a more nuanced understanding of the situation, instead of the extreme abstraction that was proposed.

So what exactly is being asked here? If we would sacrifice 20 Levels of Job development for whatever reason? That's absurd. I love Recitation, I love Consolation (not Seraph, lol), I loved 6.0 Expedient. Why am I expected to give them up in your hypothetical scenario? I want Scholar to be good, fun and engaging all around — just like all Jobs should be. So you can't force a superficial binary choice of opposition, and expect people to simply say "yes" or "no" — that is not helpful in any shape, way or form. Saying stuff like "I was honestly surprised most didn't [want to go back to SB Scholar], which makes me think that SB SCH lives in people's heads as a monument to greatness, but doesn't exactly live up to that in truth when people think about it" is the most incredible display of misunderstanding I've seen in a hot minute, enough to make me question your good faith. People rightfully adore what Scholar used to be in Stormblood — and they have said so numerous times here and in a multitude of other threads and posts since late 2019 —, it's just unfair to leverage the 4.x version against the weight of 2 expansions and 20 Levels worth of expected improvement of the Job itself. Really, Idon't know when you started frequenting the forums, but I encourage you to scroll through 60~80 pages of the Healer's sub forum, listen to the various healer podcasts that have been flying around, and even the comments under Youtube videos or similar things. I'd say you'll then have a clear picture of what the situation has been with Scholar in the past few years. It could not be clearer and it definitely speaks loudly against your interpretation of things.

Still, you want to push a black-and-white sort of decision on your audience. That's fair, it was your choice of topic and I shall go along with it. Yes, despite everything I would 100% sacrifice all of Shadowbringers and all of Endwalker to have old Scholar back. Because even though I love the story (until Elpis, anyway), cool glamours and flashy particle effects, I prefer to have fun when I play a videogame — and Stormblood Scholar will forever be infinitely more fun than the mockery which came afterwards.

[Absurdity]

The reason why it isn't a simple "Yes" despite SB SCH being vastly superior to what came after is because the environment around the job has changed over the last two expansions.
If you asked me "Should we go back to SB combat and job design?" I would immediately answer with yes because I not only consider the Stormblood design to be overall superior (with few exceptions like SB WHM) but it also means that the 4.X job design would then exist in a 4.X environment, the environment it was designed for and functions properly in.
Planting a 4.X job into the 6.X environment is inevitably going to lead to problems.

Let's take a different job as an example that I feel quite strongly about, Warrior.
I consider both pre-4.2 and even 4.2 warrior to be vastly superior to the current design for the job, it had more nuance to it's gameplay and felt more satisfying to execute properly (yes, even after the 4.2 rework).
But dropping 4.1/4.2 warrior into the 6.X combat design simply wouldn't work, it would underperform not only offensively but also defensively in current fight design.

It's offensive kit isn't designed for the 2-minute meta, not to mention the lack of potency creep, and it's defensive kit lacks the strong mitigation that current tanks have access to, it's invuln can't even deal with the high movement situations that are almost constant in current fights.