If tank damage is now based on VIT, why do healers still have Cleric Stance?

[Azurr]

I actually had the same idea in the healer forums a while ago, which wasn't received too well. I agree with OP, MND should be healer damage base, not INT. Cleric can stay and be a damage buff/heal debuff to keep overall flow the same. I've seen healers try to DPS out of cleric far too often, and that way DPSing out of cleric wouldn't be a waste of mana.

[Voltyblast]

Personally, I'd like to be something similar like WoW (yeah worst game ever, worst example ever, whatever: bite me): In that game healers need spell power, which is given by Intelligence and it's a unique stat for all spell users, both dps and healers, and some healers like discipline priests work alongside this benefit by making their damage also their heals. In general however, spell power is used for both healing and damaging and the only difference is the secondary stat (which is not the case here)

Honestly I don't know why this couldn't be the case: MND could be a healer-only stat that increases both their spell dmg AND heals (with proper balancing though) and leave INT to actual spell casters like BLM and similar. Considering how straightforward this game is (one stat for one class), I wish this was somehow the case also for healers.

Perhaps one day Piety could become useful again with ideas similar like these!

P.S.:And if the issue now is that 10% bonus damage from cleric stance...well, that's what balancing is for isn't it?

[Kaurie]

P.S.:And if the issue now is that 10% bonus damage from cleric stance...well, that's what balancing is for isn't it?

Yes! There are major balance issues. As an Earthen Air Mage, I am specced for DAMAGE and work very hard to do that. But then a Scholar comes along, who is specced for healing, and does more damage than me (WHILE healing) because of this overpowered skill . That is just OP.

[Shurrikhan]

P.S.:And if the issue now is that 10% bonus damage from cleric stance...well, that's what balancing is for isn't it?

I doubt the issues perceived would be in that 10% nearly so much as just that healers would now encounter zero risk when 'swapping to' dps.
...Much like how Lustrate was previously usable in Cleric without loss such that 2 aetherflow stacks and a pre-adlo meant you basically didn't have to drop cleric even once in a quick pull.

[Voltyblast]

I doubt the issues perceived would be in that 10% nearly so much as just that healers would now encounter zero risk when 'swapping to' dps.
...Much like how Lustrate was previously usable in Cleric without loss such that 2 aetherflow stacks and a pre-adlo meant you basically didn't have to drop cleric even once in a quick pull.

Well why do we want "risks" when swapping to dps? dpsing instead of healing it's enough risk as it is, how about easing it up? There is "hard" and "artificially hard" and beside the cleric stance debacle, I don't really see a big issue if MND was a lone stat for healers. Again, only after some proper balancing.

Besides, by making MND a unique stat like that and making it both a dmg and healing stat for healers ONLY, we could have better designed classes one day (hey we already have a MELEE dps using a RANGED stat: talk about messed up).
Imagine a dancer class who heals while damaging and because of the MND stat, it works as it intented? Because with the system we have right now, it might be difficult to implement something like that. Same for RDM, which apparently is a Melee Magic user...which will it be? STR (because melee) or INT (because spell)?.

We don't want another scenario like this for dps too right?

[Odett]

Ummmm.. the entire 1-60 questing experience is one huge set of DPS tests. Without DPS spells, you could not level. Period. Of course they gave CNJ/WHM damage spells for this solo content.

That clever players found a use for this stance in dungeon instances was not intentional, but it is what it is. I have no opinion in the quarrel about its use.

Or maybe every healer realized that they had a LOT of downtime when queuing into their first dungeon, and a few thought "hm, it sure is ineffective of me to stand here and do nothing for more than 50% of a fight's length", while others ignored half their skills and took it upon themselves to spam Cure whenever their tank fell below 100% HP, patting themselves on the back for doing an extremely superfluous job. Cleric stance is not blocked out during a dungeon, and neither are any of your offensive spells (which make up roughly half of your skills), because this game was not designed with healers full-time healing in mind, and leveling a healer through dungeons should make that blatantly clear.

Anyway, to TC: It's not a double standard because right now, a healer can have their cake and eat it too. Their main primary stat, MND, increases their healing potency, and they have a skill that changes their MND rating with their INT rating, letting them use offensive spells at their full strength, meaning that they do not have to compromise between healing potency and offensive spell potency when gearing up. Tanks can only equip one STR or VIT accessory in the same slot, meaning they have to balance out how much HP their are comfortable with having for the content at hand, against how much strength they want in order to increase their damage, self heals, and drop their reliance on their agro combo if they are a DRK; no other role in this game has to make such a decision.

[Synrin]

You mean kind of like they did for PvP, which caused a mass-exodus of healers from any and all Frontlines matches? Talk about the proof being in the pudding there!

Anyway, yeah. Now both healers and tanks have their 'DPS stance'. The main difference is that tanks previously had to gear differently to do this, while healers did not. Now tanks can stick with tanking gear and get all of the benefits of good damage along with their crazy defense and HP. I'm very interested to see what it does to my Paladin, since I have always geared for Vitality, and I'll be more than a little disappointed if it amounts to a tiny damage boost.

I don't PvP.

[Reynhart]

As the title suggests: If in 3.2, they are going to adjust Tank damage so that their damage is based mostly on VIT--their main stat--then why do Healers still have to do a Cleric Stance dance on/off game for DPS? Why not remove the cumbersome skill entirely, and just make Healer damage based mostly on MND?

What, honestly, is the difference here?

It's funny that you don't even ask why your gear still have plenty of our main stat ?
As a PLD, can I have as much MND as your Vitality ?

[Thunda_Cat_SMASH]

You mean kind of like they did for PvP, which caused a mass-exodus of healers from any and all Frontlines matches?

I don't really care about most of this, but I have to point out, the reason WHY they removed Cleric stance from Frontlines is specifically because healers were not only nigh impregnable (There was nothing more horrifying then seeing a party full of 8 WHM, talk about unkillable), they were singlehandedly wiping out entire alliances with a mere five or six members, and not even the best players could actually kill a healer during that era. The reason pretend healers stopped queueing for Frontlines is cause they couldn't abuse their overpowered attacks and actually had to, you know, contribute to survivability instead of trolling. SE saw how it was being abused, and removed it.

[aesteval]

As the title suggests: If in 3.2, they are going to adjust Tank damage so that their damage is based mostly on VIT--their main stat--then why do Healers still have to do a Cleric Stance dance on/off game for DPS? Why not remove the cumbersome skill entirely, and just make Healer damage based mostly on MND?

What, honestly, is the difference here?

Tanks never had a stance option to switch their str and vit stats to have the points present where they needed to be on the fly? Tanks really had the requirement to decide between str and vit while healers could focus on mind and cleric stance when needed for the damage output.

I don't disagree with you. I'm unsure to the extent that I agree with you. But I also think it's a good question to ask, consider, question, etc. I might be in agreement.