Make healers DPS with four or five healing actions

[Renathras]

Good use of... Roe's resource

It was a nit-pick of a nit-pick, so turnabout is fair play. That said, I didn't use Roe's resource, I looked it up myself earlier to verify what she posted (Wayback sometimes does some weird stuff, as do some of the referenced pages; Mr Happy did a series on the Jobs through the game's history and worked through that process). Far as I can tell, she was using an archived version of it, I'm using the modern version's page with the version history.

But this is an aside distraction, and as I said, I don't hammer people for honest mistakes admitted fairly. Let's get back on track, shall we?

.

They kind of do mean they have to be, otherwise, there would be no pressure to use all the oGCDs and to plan out their use carefully to ensure you have them for the movement phases. If there was no movement, you could use them willy-nilly since they would be completely substitutable vs the GCDs that you have to use during the encounter.

Likewise, large damage spikes are necessary otherwise the kit isn't challenged. If the damage was not "several ways of large damage within a 10 second period every 30 seconds", you could easily deal with it without having to tax your kit at all.

So the oGCDs both encourage and nearly require the fight design to be high movement and heavy damage (when damage is applied) in order to at all pressure the kits. And it even ceases to do so as players gear, leading to the "too much downtime" problem.

Having these tools DOES force this encounter design. At least as much as not having them forces another. Your argument is equally applicable here.

[Shurrikhan]

It was a nit-pick of a nit-pick, so turnabout is fair play.

No. One error was used to draw an errant conclusion about the actual, relevant topic (portion of filler attack spam across expansions).

The other was about a then-replaced ability irrelevant to WHM's playflow in any endgame content in which Misery would also have been present.

There's a difference between a relevant correction (it literally changes the conclusion on a topic of some significance) and an irrelevant one.

This is the same reason why simply spinning the wording around on a critique on something flagrantly absurd you've said does not suddenly "turn about" that critique onto the one pointed out the issue. "Turn-about" is not equal when the objects of those actions vary qualitatively. I know that attempts at snappy/witty retorted in the best of light, but tough luck.

Having these tools DOES force this encounter design. At least as much as not having them forces another. Your argument is equally applicable here.

Show me where Benediction forces fight designs that would maximize its use.
Show me where Cover forces fight designs that would maximize its use.
Show me where Elusive Jump forces fight designs that would maximize its use.

Rotationally necessary gap-makers like pre-Engagement Displacement constrain fight design if left with only one charge, by giving a minimum space available for that backstep. Displacement has not and will not, however, create a per ~30s mechanic in which a RDM is forced to rely on Displacement to avoid damage. The presence of backsteps does not force mechanics that make unique use of those backsteps.
The frequency of available mitigation constrains the frequency of otherwise OHKO tankbusters. However, they do not force tankbusters to go off at that limit of frequency.


No tool forces its unique/maximal use onto fight design, but fight design is forcibly constrained by the minimum capacities available through the jobs' kits.

My giving you $50 for lunch does not force you to spend $50 on lunch, nor necessarily any more than whatever the cheapest lunch costs. If, however, all lunches cost at least $5, then you are forced to at least have $5 for lunch.

Minimums and maximums are not the same thing.