If you want MCH to be support, let us be support.

[Viridiana]

Probably because it's a different job. Square is making everything the same(with the exception of PLD and WAR) in an effort to achieve "balance".

Except that MCH is SE's answer to BRD being "mandatory" in raiding. The only options are to make it so that what BRD brings isn't needed (so why bring BRD at all?) or make it so someone else can offer the same thing (hence MCH). I get not wanting to be a hybrid class, but when you're playing a class that's a direct response to the dominance of the game's other (until recently sole) hybrid class, I don't get why you would expect anything different. Would I have done something different with both? Probably. But that didn't change my expectations of MCH. . .

[Ryaz]

Raid-wide TP/MP regen is probably what is meant by support. No amount of utility from the other classes can make up for this incredibly powerful ability. And from what I've experienced in Alexander NM so far, it's going to be needed in Savage.

Until it's on farm and MCH/BRD are back to being "the classes that do less dps". People quickly forget a support class when they don't actually need that support. I was just thinking that there's a better way to give us support abilities that keeps us relevant through all content, not just end-game progression.

With the exception of Foe Requiem, that's how BRD has been since launch. Not sure why you would expect something different from MCH.

It may have been that way since launch, but it doesn't make it good game design. I was just hoping SE wouldn't actually make MCH a virtual carbon copy of BRD, which is what it is, with arguably worse utility skills.

[ArtificialxSky]

Until it's on farm and MCH/BRD are back to being "the classes that do less dps".

This is never the case. Even on farm--even in speed runs, especially in speed runs-- their regen abilities are invaluable. In FCOB, SMN, healers, melee, WARs and PLDs were all running out of resources while farming.

Now, I want to address your main post, and allow me to rant at length:

In support of your first point, I'd say that removing the damage penalty, considering TP/MP regen already has a cost--the caster's MP--, is a very fair rebalance.

As for the other suggestions, I believe they would push MCH into the realm of being hilariously broken. A perpetual 5%, even 1%, general vulnerability up, or general decrease in damage received, is, in fact, an exorbitant amount of amplification/mitigation over the course of a 7-10 minute fight, and would make MCH already more in demand than it currently is for raiding. And it is in demand, ever as much as BRD.

Now, as for how this suite of utilities looks for MCH--vulnerability increases and damage mitigations-- let's look at a tried and true job that has performed some of these tasks admirably all throughout 2.0 and has become a teammate without which I hesitate to go into raid content, in progression or on farm, or on speed runs--the BRD. No damage mitigation, fair enough, we'll skip it. But Foe's Requiem: it's true that BRD has a long lasting Foe's Requiem, which costs MP, but unlike the other songs, does not decrease the BRD's own damage output, and increases an enemy's vulnerability to magic damage by 10%, for as long as 50 seconds! 50 seconds. The catch is that it is a song and so can't be used in conjunction with Army's Paeon for TP or Mage's Ballad for MP. No big deal. Foe's requiem is amazing for your mage's opener.

Now, my static has two mages. Even if we had only one mage, BRD's utility is set, but we have two. BRD just became MVP of eternity. So. My static has a BRD for Alex Savage ready to go next Tuesday. We also have a TP starved DRK, PLD, and me on melee. We need her with us. I need her with us. No doubts, no holding us back, no nothing, just solid, nay, necessary support. Okay? BRD has a place. I'll repeat, it is valuable and is holding no one back. It is holding no one back.

From this example, one can argue MCH, of a very similar cut from BRD, also has just as solid, nay, necessary, a place, just as BRDs do, in a static. Whereas MCH's Hypercharge vulnerability increase only lasts a "measly" 10 seconds compared to BRD's 50 seconds, consider, for a moment, that MCH's damage amplification is variable between either physical vulnerability (hello double melee comps and BOTH tanks that have always been there!) or magical vulnerability whenever you might need it, all at the user's whim, and can be used while switching out Promotion on the turret, and doesn't cost MP to use. In other words, IT'S FREE!!! (On a side note, even in a double caster composition like my own, Rook Turret Hypercharge would be more valuable raidwide than Bishop's since physical damage still outweighs magical damage in the raid, meaning MCH's ability might actually amplify a greater amount of damage, overall, than BRD's Foe's; and especially so in a double melee comp.)

Now to show how similar in value you, MCH, are, like the BRD, understand that in FCOB, a BRD might get to play Foe's Requiem exactly once in the entire fight, and will, I might reckon, exactly once in these upcoming Alexander Savage fights. The rest of the time, the BRD is playing Army's Paeon for my TP (our tanks included of course) or Mage's Ballad for our SMN and healers. The MCH, on the other hand, gets to use Hypercharge whenever it is off cooldown, and then switch right on back to Promotion for our resources. Now, knowing all these trade-offs and similarities and the value of BRD and MCH's near-equivalence to this most distinguished of job-roles, will you, OP, tell me why, exactly, upon reflection, you feel as though you're "holding your group back"? Oh and I completely forgot to mention MCH has free damage mitigation! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! What?

I will say again though, removing the damage penalty while activating TP/MP regen is a great idea. ^^d

[ThirdChild_ZKI]

#amazingpost

This post left my seat sticky. . .

[Ryaz]

@ArtificalxSky: I really hope that's the case. However, from my experiences so far, I enter a group and get a lot of "I'm worried about the MCH" from other players. Those were the exact words used during my first Bis Ex clear. Hell, members of my own FC doubted MCH because of lower damage and utility that isn't readily apparent outside of end game content.

As for the party wide damage increase, it would be limited to physical or magical and would be balanced to make up for our lower damage, giving dps that was supposed to be ours to others in the party )supporting them). I also suggested that it wouldn't be able to be used with other stances. If you want physical damage increase, you can't have the magical damage, neither of the damage reductions or mp/TP regen. If you're regenning the party, you don't get any damage increase-- and this all would take MP to use (and possibly even give a reason to put points into a stat other than Dex). It would have to be balanced, obviously. I'm just trying to find ways to make our support more readily apparent outside of cutting edge end game.

[AnnietheCat]

However, from my experiences so far, I enter a group and get a lot of "I'm worried about the MCH" from other players.

I've been kicked from parties twice just for showing up as BRD. Once for The Vault and once for Bismark HM. No hi, how are ya, just insta-kick. So overall my experience with these changes has left an extremely bad taste in my mouth. Even in the PF you get people saying "bards need not apply" when it comes to raiding(not my thing anyway) and extremes, so it's completely frustrating and I get those MCH feels. Besides, if we're going to be listed as support hybrids, at least stop penalizing us for using the support skills.

[ckc22]

I agree. I played bard in XI and loved being a hard-support. I don't play it here because it's basically a pseudo-ranger.

They keep going on and on about how it's support/dps but if you look at something like Bard's new skills there's maybe 1 you could call a support skill and it really sucks - single target single debuff pre esuna? Puhlease.

I think they've locked themselves into the classic mmo triangle too hard and made the classes in each role too homogenous.

[AnnietheCat]

I agree. I played bard in XI and loved being a hard-support. I don't play it here because it's basically a pseudo-ranger.

The problem with making either MCH or BRD hard support is the fact that the players of each are split. I'd say at least half of us want to simply be ranged physical dps and the other half wants to be hard support. There really needs to be a job split, at least with brd. idk about mch because it doesn't have a starting class, so a job split with mch would just be adding another job. But if we allowed everyone to pick between XI type bard and an actual ranger type class, they'd be happier. Or introduce skill trees so everyone gets a bit more freedom. Overall implementation of the jobs is pretty bad, imo.

[HairyRoger]

.....

Agree fully to this. I do not feel that I weaken the team by being MCH, neither in dps nor support. I also agree with removing the penalty while regenerating which would promote(pun not intended) more useage of said support skills.

I do think a lot of the "MCH is weak" mentality stems from the difficulty the class brings. You can't afford making mistakes left and right and expect doing competative dps. Thumbs up!

[Rumpelstiltzkin]

I think that the concept of support works okay in savage. Not anywhere else because as a MCH only in savage does the tp/mp regen do anything. Everywhere else they are just gimp DPS.