Geomancer (CNJ Job) concept

[Viviza]

You consider Garuda and Eos the same spell because they're both summons? They serve completely different roles.

[Giantbane]

No, the summon spells still summon stuff. The *summons* are different (radically different in the case of SCH), but the spells themselves still do the same basic thing: summon a pet. This isn't the same as changing Cure into an attack. Cure restores hp; it would be a radical departure (re: a full rewrite of the ability rather than changing one aspect of it) for it to suddenly become an attack. That's the point. The devs have said that they can change aspects of abilities with job changes (re: removing high enmity mods from GLA attack if it got DRK as a DPS job, change what's summoned for a given summon spell), but they haven't said anything about replacing an ability with an entirely new one (and, keep in mind, Cure and Cure 2 both have traits attached, so it would be completely replacing those traits as well).

It could be a mode change of sorts. Geomancers could have a temporary buff "Corruption" where all their cures turn into attack spells for a limited time. Temporarily harnessing the corrupted elemental forces we see throughout the CNJ quests and what not. The base spell stays the same, just that its function becomes modified by a GEO specific buff.

[Exstal]

You consider Garuda and Eos the same spell because they're both summons? They serve completely different roles.

They are the same spell.　It would almost no effort to give SMN Eos and SCH Garuda. As a matter of fact, the skill is even called the same, "Summon I".

Turning CNJ into DPS would require removing; Cure, Cure II, Cure III, Medica, Medica II and all associated traits and replacing them with DPS skills.

Tell me, which is easier?

[Kitru]

The base spell stays the same, just that its function becomes modified by a GEO specific buff.

It's not a question of "temporary or permanent". It's the fact that it would require *completely changing the spell*.

[VoltaAsura]

This is a great idea, but I dislike it for one reason and one alone.

If Geomancer was to stem from the Conj class, it would yield a cane or wand. No thank you.

[Kitru]

You consider Garuda and Eos the same spell because they're both summons? They serve completely different roles.

No, Garuda and Eos are completely separate summons. The *spell* that summons them, Summon I, is the same spell just with a single tweaked effect (e.g. Eos or Garuda). It still summons something; the only thing that changes is what it summons. It doesn't turn a spell that summons a pet into an instant AoE; Summon I does the same fundamental thing whether it's cast by a ACN, a SMN, or a SCH: it summons a pet.

[Viviza]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't see how summoning something different is not a different spell.

That would be like saying all attack spells as the same spell because they are attack spells with tweaked effects. (edit: as long as they have the same name? I don't see why the name matters at all)

[Exstal]

There is no agree to disagree. You're wrong and that's it. SMN and myself both using Summon I. What comes out might be a different version of summon, but the skill is the same.

[Viviza]

different version of summon

but the skill is the same.

different

same.

Right. Whatever.

[Kitru]

Right. Whatever.

Because context doesn't mean a thing, right? What you have misquoted applies just as well to the WAR combo attacks because they're different (WAR versions generate Wrath; MRD don't) but they're still basically the same (because nothing else changes) as it does to any one of a number of minute different class/job differences.

You're ignoring the context and just getting hung up on specific words because you're incapable of separating what a summon spell *summons* and what a summon spell *is*. A summon spell (doesn't matter if it's Summon, Summon II, or Summon III) summons a pet. Summon(ACN), Summon(SCH), and Summon(SMN) are all *still* summon spells the only difference between which is the entity summoned. It's akin to if the devs changed the DoT on Fracture into an armor debuff: it's still fundamentally an *attack* even if the effect is different.

This is *completely* different from changing a healing spell into an attack spell. That is changing the fundamental nature of the attack, not modifying the effect, which is what we've been saying all along. The devs have nowhere shown that they can or will change the fundamental nature of an attack due to a job change; if they wanted/could, you can be pretty sure that SCH probably would have seen some of those changes given the dearth of heals they have compared to WHM, especially since it would have allowed them to restrict combat rezzing to SCH instead of providing it to SMN as well, which is a remarkably unique functionality to provide to a non-healer (since no one else really has real cross role functionality otherwise).