How would you solve the boring "damage rotation" of the healers?

[Saraide]

snip

The first point means literally nothing. If you're familiar with the abilities already in play you'll have a much easier time adjusting to a substantial rework of one half of the job than some having to learn both halves of the job.

The second point: if your party hits enrages in ex trials, the problem is a lack of mechanic understanding. Enrages have been so loose in the ex trials this expansion you actually have to put in effort to see them. You can say that you dont care about who is to blame but that doesnt change the fact that the problem in ex trial enrages is not the healer's damage output. Especially if better gear is involved. Good job keeping a group of headless chicken alive enough to see enrage tho.

Third point: do not mix up forum and ingame communication. This is a discussion forum so credentials will rightfully be questioned. If you cant stand your credentials being questioned about a topic you are trying to discuss then you should bow out of it. No static worth your time will reject you exclusively based on logs. If you cant get into a static there are other issues in place. Given your conduct on this forum however I am not surprised.

4th: it's not correct to leave one healer badly designed. What logic is that even? Do we just hit the casino to find out which one it is? I think scholar should be the braindead one because I dont like the job aesthetic and we should give players who leveled smn first access to the easiest healer!

[Renathras]

He's so clearly not arguing in good faith and the only person who seemingly doesnt realize this is himself. He even thinks the wesk alber thread was made in good faith.

Thurmnmurmn, this is why ignoring hecklers doesn't work. They seem not to get the message what they're doing is bad (unless someone else explicitly tells them). They just do it more if you don't challenge them. Oh, and people upvote and agree with their posts. So that's why it hasn't worked thus far.

Because adding a few DPS spells to the healers will not bother the vast majority of players currently.

1) You don't actually KNOW this, you THINK this.

2) What about the players that it WILL bother?

3) I NEVER talk under the assumption that "most players" feel the way I do. I consistently say that we're a minority, and long have done so. I have frequently estimated it at 15-30%, which is not "most". Enough to justify 1 out of 4 Healer Jobs being built for them, though. Do you not remember when I said if we had 5 healer Jobs, 1 out of 5 being made for folks like me would be about right? Please stop lying.

4) Many players ignored those mechanics at the time. I didn't do any high end content until basically the end of the expansion, where I did some Bismark Ex farming (ironically on SMN because most parties at the time needed more DPSers). And I didn't use Aero 3 except in AOE situations since I didn't think it was a damage gain at the time (I didn't get into theorycrafting or reading stuff about the Jobs outside of the game until SB when I decided to try really understanding SCH), and likewise didn't use Fluid Aura outside of soloing because the knockback made tanks mad. I also only used Cleric Stance for soling and hated the ability even back then - as did enough of the community the Devs removed it. The community has changed since HW. What we do know is there are more healers now than there were in SB. Well, "know" is a strong word, but based on the little data we found before, that was the case. If those HW mechanics were in the game now, we'd likely have a healer shortage. People know a lot more now and care a lot more now. The "no Cleric healer" in 4 mans would be as mocked and derided as the "tank that doesn't wall-to-wall" is today, and that would be very divisive and lead to a lot of "healxiety" players leaving the role, as well as a lot of healer players that don't like DPS leaving to either play Tank or SMN/RDM/DNC (ironically, the same Jobs gravitated to by the people who don't like healers presently but consider themselves healers bored with the current healer DPS kits...), or just quitting the game outright. In any case, we'd likely have a massive healer shortage on our hands, at which point what would the Devs do? Nerf healing again.

5) I can GUARANTEE you it will make some people stop playing healers. What I can't say is how many. But I've already offered you a solution that doesn't carry that risk. That DOES satisfy all groups and everyone OTHER THAN the people who want everything for them and don't want to share, or don't want people who "aren't as gud as me!!" pulling similar numbers "with less effort".

I can't imagine what goes on in your mind.

Mostly every one here is against your idea(s). And apparently you have this same discussion over and over again. Yet you still have balls (stubbornness? stupidity?) to claim your solution is the only one compatible. As if devs don't change their mind, ever.

Most people are even saying "why not both?" to your responses but you're just so set on being right and any added DPS effort is the devil's work!

Get over yourself. You're a lala, you would think that to be easy.

....

You say "ignore the hecklers", then you post something like this. Couple things:

A) Some people do agree with me.

B) I agree with me, and this is relevant to me enjoying the game, so how come everyone else gets to post their ideas but not I mine? I genuinely don't understand this. "You've said this a bunch, you can shut up now and leave this feedback forum to only having feedback supporting the thing you're against". How does that make sense? These other people have made their arguments a hundred times, too. Why do you support everyone else getting to advocate for what they want but not me getting to advocate for what I want?

C) Mine is the only one that addresses the needs of all sides as currently presented. The "solutions" I'm arguing against do not, and I've said why they do not. The Devs DO change their minds, but you have no evidence they are going to here and evidence they intend not to.

D) My response IS the "why not both" response! Mine is literally the only one saying "Why not have some healers with complex DPS kits and some without?". None of the other suggestions ARE doing that. Which other response is saying "Let's have a solution for the people who don't want to engage with complex DPS kits on healers and solutions for those that do". The other "solutions" are "Let's have a solution that works for the people who want more DPS kits and...well...I'm sure it won't harm those that don't TOO much", despite one of said people saying "Yes, I'm one of those people, AND IT WILL." The closest you have are people offering supposedly less complex ones and saying "Surely this isn't too complex", but when offered changes that would make it acceptable say "No, not that". Hell, I made suggestion's to Roe's WHM idea that would mostly incorporate it while making it not too alienating for a person like me and was told off for daring to even make such suggestions (followed by a page or so of insults). Clearly that's not a "why not both" approach.

I'm curious, if you could make a single relatively small change (no, "revert all changes to 'x'" isn't a small change imo) to improve healers, what would it be?

Hm...only one and only a small one?

WHM: All GCD heals nourish the Blood Lily. This would make Misery more common in the rotation and make the 6 GCD heals taking up space in the kit actually staples of the Job again instead of mostly dead buttons no one ever uses.

SCH: SCH is hard because I have several ideas, but they're all marginally bigger changes. I guess the SMALLEST one would be to have give Ruin 2 a small potency DoT but leave its up front damage the same. That way, it's part of the main rotation (breaking up Broilspam) while also still being useful as a movement tool and not contributing to more button bloat.

AST: Oh god, I have no idea. Probably the biggest change I'd make is to cut the CD on Draw to 20 seconds and make Draw and Play GCDs, with Draw doing 2x Malific's damage to the enemy you have targeted (if you have one; if you don't it simply Draws a card like now, allowing pre-pull Draws to still work). This would lower AST's carpel tunnel inducing APM during burst phases while still being damage neutral, and with the shorter CD on Draw, AST would get to engage with their main mechanic more often. This would not only break up their downtime Malific spam, it would make them feel more like an active buffer/support healer instead of one that really only hands out buffs once per 2 mins. Downside is that I think a lot of ASTs enjoy that hectic play, and AST is the healer Job I play the least because I specifically do NOT like it. In line with my general philosophy of "don't take things from people who enjoy them", I apply that standard to my own proposals as well. But if you were asking me what one change I would make to improve AST, where it can only be a small change but would be something I think improves it? That would probably be my proposal.

SGE: Like SCH, there's not a simple fix I can think of that would do much for them. If I was to pick only ONE change, and a simple one, either of "every 20 sec generate 1 Addersgall AND 1 Addersting" or "Every Addersgall consumed generates 1 Addersting". Basically, this would allow for more frequent Toxicon use. Ideally, Toxicon's potency would be increased a bit as this otherwise wouldn't be a huge deal (single target fights it would still be DPS neutral with Dosis if we don't up the potency), so increase its potency by 50% or so to make it worth using outside of movement along with that. Alternatively, double Toxicon's potency with the current system to make it a burst gain, DPS neutral otherwise thing around actively using and breaking barriers. But honestly, my ideals for SGE would require more significant changes. But if I was limited to only a small one, it would be one of those - more consistent Toxicon generation OR double Toxicon's potency allowing breaking up the Dosisspam with GCD barrier healing and Toxicon uses.

How can the dev team emulate this in an encounter though? I believe this is what needs to be explored. We're not getting anywhere discussing skills and rotations.

Good post, and I kind of (mostly) agree.

It's why I think "more DPS buttons" isn't really a solution, it's a band-aid. It covers over the real problem it doesn't solve it, and it even hurts the people specifically who dislike complex DPS rotations in general.

I'll take the bait. Ren, what precisely is the "4 healer model" and why would it be better than anyone else's suggestions? You don't need to go into the nitty gritty details, just a general outline.

Ty really hates the idea and so has kind of a bad way of describing it, but his assessment this time was mostly fair.

In the SIMPLEST terms, "We have 4 Healer Jobs, why not make them each different from each other so players who like different things can find one they enjoy? If they don't enjoy 1 right now, it doesn't matter which they swap to, the others are all mostly the same. So how about a system where they can swap to another and it be distinct and actually address their needs?"

For example, imagine if all three Casters were SMN with a different VFX set. Or were all BLM with a different VFX set. In either cases, three color schemes of the exact same rotation. What's the point of even having different ones? On the other hand, the current Caster roster is great because each one offers a different experience, not just in aesthetics, but in gameplay loop/rotation/complexity/focus for people who enjoy different things.

Breaking it down to more specific cases:

WHM: Leave it more or less as it is, though with whatever additional "new things" you'd typically get from an expansion (a new charge of something, etc), or some more minor changes (like adding a 5% damage reduction to Plenary to give WHM more access to party mitigation - right now, WHM has less party mitigation than BLACK MAGE does. Let that sink in). But on the DPS side, to keep it where it is today for people that enjoy the current healer damage kits and don't want a complex damage rotation on their healer Job. Also because WHM in EW is mostly in the best place it's ever been. SB WHM really really REALLY suckec, which is why most players didn't complain with the ShB changes, since they made the Job cohesive and functional again, though Misery was still a slight DPS loss (only equal to 3 Glares). EW has fixed that issue, and generally speaking people really like WHM now, and it's been in the best overall position it's been among the healers since ARR when there were ONLY TWO. It being the most played now of the healers also indicates it's doing something right. There are people that like current healers, so leaving WHM as it is would give them a home in the new system instead of making them homeless.

SCH: Revert it (mostly) to its SB incarnation. SB seemed to be the height of SCH and when the most people said they enjoyed it, and when its DPS kit was gutted going into ShB, generated massive complaints that have persisted to this day. Some additions from then that would remain, though, would be stuff like the improved AI responsiveness of the Faerie and Expedience, which a lot of people really enjoy using. This would give the players that are bored with current healers and like having a lot more plates and resources to juggle their outlet.

AST: Somewhat revert it to its SB incarnation. Unlike SCH, AST's change into ShB was mostly on the cart front, since it as the OG "nukespam + DoT" healer, and had that gameplay in SB. The difference is there was a lot more going on with its Cards which gave people a lot more engagement. Though this is only a PARTIAL fix. A second thing that has happened to really screw AST is the 2 min meta. More than any of the other healers (in fact, it's the most impacted by this; most of the healers have been pretty insulated from the 2 min meta) because they're forced to blow all their card juggling during that burst window and then...have a really boring downtime otherwise. They're kind of like DRK or NIN who have a similar high APM, "blow all the things" during burst but then have a pretty uneventful downtime until the next burst. That's really hurt AST a lot. Further, the other healers having their spamnuke GCD lowered to 1.5 sec to allow for easier weaving kind of stepped on AST's toes where that used to be an AST only thing. Basically, AST got super hosed by both the ShB changes to the Cards and the EW changes to the 2 min meta just kicked it when it was down even harder. AST still survives based on just being the most overall powerful (it has party buffs, strong heals, better MP economy than WHM, and can be a barrier healer for 30 seconds out of every 2 mins to top that all off, with a 1 min CD party mitigation it can use in between for additional mitigation needs), but it's the least played by most metrics.

SGE: SGE was pitched as a GNB-like "healer for players that like dpsers". The difference is, GNB arguably achieved that fantasy being a tank with a good approximation of a Melee DPSers kit while SGE...basically stole SCH's homework and copied it nearly exactly. It's mostly described as "a smoother, better SCH" by many players, and is the second most played after WHM. I'm a bit torn on this one, because on the one hand, being "a better SCH" means we should change SCH to be something else and leave SGE for the people that like it, but on the other hand, it WAS pitched as a "healer for players that like dpsers", and has tools like Kardia to achieve that, not to mention the Job's lore of being a very intricate, highly skilled discipline. So it could either stay as is to be "the BARRIER healer for people that like current healers", or it could be changed and given an actual DPS rotation leveraging Kardia instead of an oGCD suite to do its actual healing.

... Why leave WHM the way it is??? Surely whatever changes could be made to WHM would be largely ignorable if you want to spam medica 2 and occasionally hit glare like people do currently.

Well, two reasons and a point:

1) There are people that like current healers, so leaving WHM as it is would give them a home in the new system instead of making them homeless people who now hate all the healers.

2) "largely ignorable" is true if the damage difference is truly negligible. Every time I've asked people proposing alternatives if they would make the difference truly negligible (with 1% or so), they insist that is not allowable as people doing "more work" (even though they are literally asking for it) should be "rewarded" with more damage, otherwise it wouldn't be worth it to them - meaning their objective isn't "to not be bored" but "to out damage other people", which would make the entire premise of their argument a lie. I'm working on the premise they AREN'T lying, mind you, and are truthful in saying they just want to not be bored, which is why them being such sticklers to this requirement that the more DPS button users do significantly more (percentage) damage doesn't make sense unless they're lying. IF the difference WAS ignorable/insignificant, I would agree. But every time I've asked for it to be, I've been rebuffed.

3) Even under my argument, there would not be a case of literally nothing changing. It would just be changes for at least one of the healers (WHM, in this case) would not be "more DPS actions/complexity". More healing buttons, effects, streamlining of systems, etc, would all be allowed. For example, adding a party mitigation to Plenary or letting all WHM GCD heals nourish the Blood Lily, or giving them all an "Afflatus" version when you have a Lily that would make them instant cast and consume the Lily instead of MP (Cure 2 and Medica 1 would be replaced with Solace and Rapture, etc); changes like that would be fine since that's already kind of how WHM plays and doesn't alienate the players that like current healer gameplay.

.

Also, a warning to you:

When asking about something, it's best NOT to listen to what ONLY the detractors have to say and make your conclusions based on that. That'd be like asking about adding more dps abilities/complexity to healers and only listening to MY thoughts on the matter (as a detractor), not the people actually proposing and promoting the idea.

[Renathras]

Even when polled with Tys survey...

It's not a lobotomy to leave something as it is. You can argue it's like installing a chip in 3 people's heads to make them smarter and leaving one dumb, but there are plenty of irl Humans that would rather not have the chip (in the somewhat near future, this is going to be a real choice we have, like as not, btw...)

As for Ty's surveys - while I like them because I like more data, neither is a scientific survey. There are no control groups, and there's no weighting based on anything. It's raw data from the places on the internet where people are most likely to want more complex things and be hanging out while disgruntled with the current offerings. The first survey also reached a wider audience and had less people asking for more DPS actions than the second, which seemed to be more limited to people responding from here and FFXIVDiscussion, two places most annoyed with current healer design. Most of them also do not have a "don't change anything" option, meaning people have to pick something, and so many may be picking something that they don't really want but is just the "best of the available options". Regardless, the point is they're somewhat useful for gauging what mostly high end players that want more complex healer Jobs want, but not necessarily for gauging what the playerbase as a whole or "most WHM" etc want.

And even there, are mostly limited to English speakers. Apparently, the JP community doesn't want more damage complexity on healers, they want more healing complexity - including their high end players - and that isn't reflected in Ty's surveys. So they are interesting and useful, but must be considered carefully based on those limitations.

And, even within those surveys, there are "a hell of a lot" that don't want more expanded DPS kits. (As for SB WHM, the problem wasn't it had no identity, the problem was the kit was HORRIBLE and actively worked against its identity - for example, during one period, you generated Lilies...by casting...Cure 1. Think about that one for a minute.) For example, in the first survey, more than half of WHMs said they preferred ShB/EW to ARR/HW/SB WHM, indicating they prefer the current gameplay. The number one request for WHM was not "add a lot of damage buttons or interactivity" it was "Can we just have Aero 3 back? Nothing else, just Aero 3."

And to the last part: As I've said, the proposal is not "no changes", the proposal is "no more complex DPS kit/rotation". Please don't srawman.

As far as comparing BLM vs SMN you are correct. I would point out as a BLM main that I'm highly aware SMN is easier to play and gets you viable DPS with the benefits of high mobility and res. SMN is basically ez mode in comparison. But I will never move to SMN because I don't want that gameplay experience. It's an excellent comparison for illustrating how one class is clearly less popular (BLM) but satisfies a notable amount of players' gameplay preference, which is a very good thing imo. SMN has its own issues I've heard but I don't think bringing to the scale of BLM males any sense. As I've said before every role has and should have a simple but fun job that does most things well (not the best in all aspects, but well). SMN is that for casters imo but I've heard the rotation is boring and that may need some looking at. Similarly every role should have at least one BLM like class to offer those nuances and high ceiling.

Again, I...absolutely agree with this position. (Other than SMN, I like SMN and think it's in the best place it's been since either ARR or ever...but I agree with you on the overall merits/thrust of your argument.

The first point means literally nothing.

Oh my god, do you have ANY idea how annoying this is? Someone says they don't understand, so I offer them to ask questions and I'll try to clarify. They ask, I answer, they give a sort of rebuttal (which isn't what you should do when trying to understand someone, but regardless), and I attempt further clarification.

Instead of saying "Hm...I see what you're saying, but I'd like to see your take on this. Have you considered...?" or "I see what you mean, but I have a question for you...", you say "that means nothing", meaning you outright ignore/disregard my answer - an answer given in good faith to a question asked in good faith. It's toxic and disruptive to conversations, and even ignoring that, IT'S RUDE. The point wasn't an argument inviting a rebuttal, it was an answer to a question., and you could have left off that "The first point means literally nothing" and just started with your second sentence soas not to be so blatantly rude. Not to mention it's wrong - it doesn't mean "literally nothing". Your argument seems to be "If you're already good at/familiar with something, you should be better positioned to adjust than a person who is completely unfamiliar with the thing".

That IS true. In a vacuum. It's not true or applicable here. Why not?

a) First, because we aren't talking about adjusting. The argument is for people who continue playing the Job with exactly the same cadence as they do now. E.g. refreshing Dia every 30 sec, using Misery once per minute, using Assize on CD, and filling all non Afflatus/Dia GCDs with Glare. There's no "it's easier for you to adjust" when the argument is "you don't have to adjust and will still be viable". You're arguing a different point.

b) Again, some people are good at some things and not others. Suppose you're good at playing guitar and someone tries to get you to play trumpet. You might be good at music in general, and able to make the change. On the other hand, you might be good at STRINGED INSTRUMENTS specifically and have poor lung capacity, meaning while you could change to a bass or possibly violin, switching to a trumpet or other brass or wind instrument is out of the question and would be extremely difficult since the thrust of the change isn't in music theory but rather in physical ability into a different domain you have little experience and skill with from playing your first instrument. This is the same way as "optimizing healing" vs "optimizing DPS". Some people are not skilled at optimizing DPS. Some people can be but are not interested/do not derive joy or fun from optimizing DPS. So why force them to do so when they are literally playing the one role in the game that ISN'T focused on DPS and/or explicitly avoiding the role that IS?

Second point: IT DOES NOT MATTER what the reason is, it matters that it happens. This is dangerously close to the "well, you just shouldn't be allowed to clear content unless you have a static and are a hardcore player" argument, which is invalid. We're talking about Extremes, not Ultimates. Believe me, with the average PF group for first time clears, you do NOT have to put in effort to see enrages...

Third: She asked why I thought a thing would be true and I answered. Note the question did not distinguish between forum and game. And clearly I DO care about forum interactions. "credentials" are not what are being questioned, and that's a BS argument anyway. But the point stands; people WILL make judgements based on it, so it IS relevant. Sorry? ALSO: GOOD FORKING GOD at the mouth and insults on you. I haven't tried getting into a static because I don't have a schedule that allows for it. Way to go on assuming the worst and most insulting thing possible about me instead to put me down. God you are a rude person...

Fourth: It's not "badly designed". WHM right now is very well designed. The only people saying "braindead" are people like you that also call WAR and SMN braindead while insisting their gameplay is lightyears advanced and healers should be more like them. The healers right now are designed just fine, the big problem is they're borderline designed for a different game (encounter design mismatch vs healer kits) and that they're all designed too similarly. When it comes to flow of the kit and viability, though, they all are designed fairly well. WHM and SGE are designed VERY well other than they lack a need to engage with their GCD heals often, though that's more an encounter design issue than their kit designs. AST and SCH have some more issues, but aren't badly designed, they're just more marginal in how their kits fight themselves and don't always interlock smoothly.

I fully believe any one of the healers right now, had it been added in SB, would have worked fine and been popular in that expansion AS IT IS TODAY. If SB had given us EW WHM, it probably would have been popular. I believe this because the ShB version, which was worse than the EW version, WAS popular on release right on the heels of SB. If SB had added current SGE as a new Job, it probably would have been REALLY popular since it would have been such a break with the existing healers at the time. So the healers are NOT "badly designed" right now. That's a lie. They're well designed on the whole (other than possibly SCH), but not everyone likes them. That's a good reason to make some changes, but not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Hence: 4 Healers Model.

[Thurmnmurmn]

snip

Your entire argument is based around "But what about bad people???". If they suck at the game, there's no reason for them to be rewarded more than getting the clear (I think that's even too much of a reward but we're already there now). Which btw news flash, most casual groups do clear with full grey parses already.
If you play well, you get rewarded with a faster clear. Play like you don't care and it will take longer. Simple as that. What you want is some Hello Kitty everyone wins nonsense .
People adapt to changes. Some faster, some slower. That's just how life works.

Also the whole pf thing just yells of entitlement. They make the party, they can decide what criteria they want. If you want to join a party for your first clear but none are up, make one. Others who are also in the same boat as you are also just waiting for someone else to make a party first.
Just because you decided to not run it when it was brand new content doesn't mean you're entitled to being carried by those who did it.

I didn't even check but I'm fairly confident others told you the exact same thing.
I still read your post and just hear a small voice in my head being all like "WAH WAH WAH I'M RIGHT! WHY CAN'T THEY SEE THAT? WAH!!!!!!!!!!!"

[Renathras]

Your entire argument is based around "But what about bad people???".

No it's not.

That is disingenuous, a straw man, AND a lie.

EDIT:

Also: For a person that says "just ignore the hecklers", you do a lot of heckling. Have you ever considered you may be part of the problem?

And I also see you didn't answer the question of why I should shut up while other people should be allowed to post their thoughts...other than just insulting me, lying about (and also insulting) my arguments, and avoiding the question, that is.

[Thurmnmurmn]

No it's not.

That is disingenuous, a straw man, AND a lie.

Maybe not the entire part. but it is something you're arguing for none the less.

[Renathras]

Maybe not the entire part. but it is something you're arguing for none the less.

No I'm not.

That's like saying the people arguing for more complex DPS are all arguing for elitists to be the only one able to clear content and to be able to wave their e-peens around at their "lessers".

EDIT:

Which wouldn't (at least, I don't think it would) be a fair assessment of their views, which is why I avoid doing it. I argue in good faith, which is why I TRY to stick to the arguments people are making, not self-undertaken assessments of what their motivations are, mental state is, personal skill level is, or what they MUST be "secretly" arguing for, either explicitly or implicitly. (Though I will call out repeated insulting offenders, the goal is to ATTEMPT to get them to stop doing it over time. Not that it works often, but hey, you never know...)

[Thurmnmurmn]

No I'm not.

That's like saying the people arguing for more complex DPS are all arguing for elitists to be the only one able to clear content and to be able to wave their e-peens around at their "lessers".

EDIT:

Which wouldn't (at least, I don't think it would) be a fair assessment of their views, which is why I avoid doing it. I argue in good faith, which is why I TRY to stick to the arguments people are making, not self-undertaken assessments of what their motivations are, mental state is, personal skill level is, or what they MUST be "secretly" arguing for, either explicitly or implicitly. (Though I will call out repeated insulting offenders, the goal is to ATTEMPT to get them to stop doing it over time. Not that it works often, but hey, you never know...)

Isn't the whole point of you wanting to keep WHM the same is so you can have a healer with the easier rotation (if you even wanna call it a rotation) that people got used to already? And you also argued that they should dish out the same dps as other healer jobs who would have a more difficult rotation.
If that's not advocating for bad players, I don't know what is.

[mallleable]

If WHM ever gets more dps options or additional job mechanics, I feel like they should take inspiration from BLM or RDM considering WHM has lore ties to those jobs -- like either something like dual cast or another passively built resource.

[Sebazy]

If WHM ever gets more dps options or additional job mechanics, I feel like they should take inspiration from BLM or RDM considering WHM has lore ties to those jobs -- like either something like dual cast or another passively built resource.

Thundercloud procs or I riot!

(Seriously, come on SE, it's the ultimate low hanging fruit, maybe even more so than Chocobo boots).