WTF WHMs?

[subteraneanbird]

Then that WHM is probably not playing well or you're not planning Requiem out as efficiently as possible?

I dunno what you want from me here.

[Ashkendor]

I dunno why this would make you mad as DPS. As a tank, I don't mind some Holy spam as long as I don't end up dead. The stun on it is freaking beautiful for interrupting annoying abilities, and on a geared WHM it does some impressive damage. Most of them have a pretty good handle on mana management too (Shroud of Saints is some amazing regen). Now if a WHM is spamming Holy and letting the tank die in the process or running themselves completely out of mana somehow, then yeah that's a problem.

[Wataruryu]

Heh Heh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHpPKgi-niI

[glitterati]

How is this a bad thing? I spam Holy all the time but have really good mp management and have never asked for ballad. My main is bard so i know when to use ballad (if needed.) The only time I've needed top up is when the dps in the dungeon is low due to undergeared party members and i've REALLY had to put some dps work in. If the whm knows how to manage mp, has a good sense of timing and knows what their heals are going to hit for (all these are basic should's), then the tank should never be at risk.

[peaches]

I don't understand the train of thought that the Bard is a support class. It most definitely is not. It is a DPS class with supportive abilities. The Monk could be considered the same with Mantra.

[Sanguisio]

BRD is predominantly a support class, afaik correct me if im wrong.
DPS wise they are outdone, their LB is a healer's, the skills that separate them from ARC are support skills.
Theres nothing wrong with being a support class, but IMO that is what they are.

MNK only has one skill which helps which is mantra but that is from PGL, none of the skills which separate MNK and PGL are support skills. PGL is supportish/dps, MNK is a DPS class

[Yuji-Ikaido]

You're being incredibly presumptuous about people without even speaking to them. I have my MP under control. I know how much I can regen, I know how much I need, and I know how much I can use. You automatically assume that since my MP is under a certain amount, that holy cow I need a ballad! That's wrong. Stop throwing a mage's ballad on me unless I ask for it. I know how to manage my MP, and I have more ways to recover it than most bards apparently realize.

[kujowaltz]

You should still consider in stun and such as factors. ....

That is a very valid crowd control point that should be considered....but not when talking about cold hard DPS. Binding targets for AoE or sleeping a running target from a monk is not DPS, but you are right, it does affect it (but that is obvious). Let me refocus you on my initial suggestion/comment on the topic; it was suggested that holy was a better "damage" spell than stone 2. I said in a single target instance, stone 2 is actually more effective - the math is there and so are my parameters. Considering a WHM, acting as a DPS member of the party, on a single target, stone 2 is more effective.

[kujowaltz]

Any DPS theorycraft never takes effects into account. You will never hear any BLM talk about fitting a sleep spell into a burn phase - you will never hear a monk talk about weaving stun or slow into their combo because it may help out the party's overall DPS. Because in order to actually quantify the affects on party DPS, you need to consider party stats, positions, personal rotations, where each DPS member is in their rotation at the time of infliction, etc.) and contrast both cases.

You can easily make the same argument that if you stop caring about status effects and focus on stone2 (which is calculated to be a more effective DPS spell), you will kill the mob sooner and that means the tank will also take less damage and decrease your need to heal.

Effects are situational matters reserved for specific fights/scenarios. Their effect on CC is definite, but difficult to quantify for party DPS (which wasn't considered). Please try to understand the scope of a post before faulting it.

[ariaandkia]

That is a very valid crowd control point that should be considered....but not when talking about cold hard DPS. Binding targets for AoE or sleeping a running target from a monk is not DPS, but you are right, it does affect it (but that is obvious). Let me refocus you on my initial suggestion/comment on the topic; it was suggested that holy was a better "damage" spell than stone 2. I said in a single target instance, stone 2 is actually more effective - the math is there and so are my parameters. Considering a WHM, acting as a DPS member of the party, on a single target, stone 2 is more effective.

Maybe I'm odd, but I don't see Cold hard DPS in that way. I think of it like this. Lancer uses piercing resistance debuff on enemy with 3 bards. The bards now have higher damage. I count that extra damage as the Lancer's damage, not as the bards' damage.