Pros and Cons of each Healer Role

[Fyce]

I strongly disagree. If I crit an adlo on a tank, now I know they have a solid 10k+ shield and I can swap to cleric and get some DPS in. Otherwise, I'll be prepping up to adlo again. Crits are definitely not irrelevant and what make Adlo as godly as it is. Without crit and without fairy, adlo would be fairly lack luster.

Still, it's unreliable. Like Parry.
It's nice when it happens, but you never plan expecting it. Since you should always plan for a regular Adlo, then I'll just say that N.A.Benefic's shield is strictly better and is instant cast (meaning that you can weave cleric stance and DPS better than Adlo).

It isn't pointless, because AST has nothing to compete with that kind of mitigation. It being on a 2 minute timer is fine, as all encounters seem to be timed around spreading that sort of damage over 2-3 minute intervals. Again, this is due to the way Square has decided to create encounters. If they weren't designed this way, it'd be a different story.

Deployment tactics doesn't have the same use as N.A.Helios. Don't compare the two. Deployment tactics is unique and has no equivalent. The comparison is pointless.

Supervirus will prevent much more damage than Disable and has a slightly longer duration (reducing more attacks as well as more %). Yes, Disable reduces darkness damage which is great for reducing the damage from the Cochma in Seph EX - though, that reduction is rarely if ever required there. I don't know of any other major aoe hits that Disable exceeds Supervirus though. Sacred Soil is instant and allows the scholar to continue casting AND the pet to continue casting - you can whispering dawn, fey cov, sacred soil and DPS at the same time which is significantly better than collective unconcious in the same situation.

Supervirus is also available for SMN. For physical tank busters, it's also available for WHM and BLM. Disable can stack with these virus, doesn't leave antibodies and is on a 30s shorter cooldown.
You are comparing two skills, trying to say which one is better, without even considering that they can work together.

As for Sacred Soil, you don't consider the context of when you'd use it, its 1 stack cost, nor the strong regen applied by CU.

Comparing like that, in a vacuum, without context, it's really a bad thing and gives people the idea that something is better than something else, while it's not true at all in practice.
For instance, not considering the regen on CU prevent people from thinking about the consequences of that effect, which is to allow the WHM not to cast Medica II or use a Medica instead of a Cure III.
These kind of comparisons cut so much stuff from getting the full picture that they are the worst.

Again, disable is actually worse - usually. The fact that CU keeps you from doing other actions makes it worse, and the small potency bonus *1.3 shields does make that aspected helios nicer.

See above. Besides, N.A.Helios's Shield isn't 130%.

This is precisely what you are doing except in reverse.

No, I'm actually saying that these comparisons are pointless, while arguing why they're wrong in the first place.

Also on that last note and the whole supervirus + disable thing, there is also other mitigation such as E4E. That 10% damage reduction is pretty significant and stacks up with virus etc.

... which can also be used by WHM, SMN, BLM.


I mean, you throw "x+y+z is better than a+b+c! yeah!" without putting that in context. You don't even consider the fact that you may not even need that kind of mitigation or that healing post buster is a thing that exist.
What I'm trying to fight is this implied 'rule' that says "if you want mitigation, go SCH, don't go AST, it's worse". No, that's not true at all. It depends on the context of the fight and other parameters like the needed DPS from healers, the needed HPS and burst heal needed, and whatnot.

Getting the full picture before saying that a job is better than another is crutial when making comparisons. Yet, most people in this thread don't.

[Kaurie]

Still, it's unreliable. Like Parry.
It's nice when it happens, but you never plan expecting it. Since you should always plan for a regular Adlo, then I'll just say that N.A.Benefic's shield is strictly better and is instant cast (meaning that you can weave cleric stance and DPS better than Adlo).

I plan for crit adlos all the time. There are often periods where I can cast several adlo's to get a crit and then deploy it. I do this in both Savage and Seph EX with fairly good success.

Deployment tactics doesn't have the same use as N.A.Helios. Don't compare the two. Deployment tactics is unique and has no equivalent. The comparison is pointless.

Kind of the point.

Supervirus is also available for SMN. For physical tank busters, it's also available for WHM and BLM. Disable can stack with these virus, doesn't leave antibodies and is on a 30s shorter cooldown.
You are comparing two skills, trying to say which one is better, without even considering that they can work together.

Actually, you compared the two skills directly trying to say Disable was better. You've adjusted your argument after realizing the Supervirus is better. In another post, I noted how my static weaves in Disable between our SMN's and my Virus.

As for Sacred Soil, you don't consider the context of when you'd use it, its 1 stack cost, nor the strong regen applied by CU.

Comparing like that, in a vacuum, without context, it's really a bad thing and gives people the idea that something is better than something else, while it's not true at all in practice.
For instance, not considering the regen on CU prevent people from thinking about the consequences of that effect, which is to allow the WHM not to cast Medica II or use a Medica instead of a Cure III.
These kind of comparisons cut so much stuff from getting the full picture that they are the worst.

You keep comparing things, and then saying that comparisons are irrelevant only when SCH wins, but not when AST wins :|

That said, you get the strongER regen applied by Whispering Dawn coupled with your sacred soil if you choose to use it - and you're not stuck immobile.

See above. Besides, N.A.Helios's Shield isn't 130%.

Oh I thought it was 130% like Aspected Benefic? My bad.

No, I'm actually saying that these comparisons are pointless, while arguing why they're wrong in the first place.

Except, you're wrong in almost every way. "Well 13 is bigger than 15 if we subtract 5 off 15", is effectively what you keep on saying. You keep talking about how it is horrible to look at things in a vacuum, but then say how we cannot take into account things like Deployment tactics because there is no AST equivalent.

... which can also be used by WHM, SMN, BLM.

Not sure the point of this, but yes all of them are capable of using it. You can have near 100% up time if you have all 4 in your party.

I mean, you throw "x+y+z is better than a+b+c! yeah!" without putting that in context. You don't even consider the fact that you may not even need that kind of mitigation or that healing post buster is a thing that exist.
What I'm trying to fight is this implied 'rule' that says "if you want mitigation, go SCH, don't go AST, it's worse". No, that's not true at all. It depends on the context of the fight and other parameters like the needed DPS from healers, the needed HPS and burst heal needed, and whatnot.

Getting the full picture before saying that a job is better than another is crutial when making comparisons. Yet, most people in this thread don't.

No, I am saying that Scholar has a fuller toolkit for mitigation, and AST has a fuller toolkit for buffs. Both AST and SCH can do both, but each excel in different ways. I never said 1 job is better, I said 1 job is better at X and the other job is better at Y.

[HPDelron]

Still, it's unreliable. Like Parry..

Parry is a terrible analogy. Parry happens or doesn't happen simultaneously with the damage, in other words the decision isn't made about if the mitigation happens or not until the mitigation is needed. With Aldo, once it crits it gives you information about the upcoming hits.If an Aldo crits you know ahead of time if the upcoming hits will be mitigated. Once you crit, the tank has 12k Shield on them and you know the next 12k worth of damage will be mitigated. Since you know this for sure you can act appropriately. Redirecting your time and resources if the extra mitigation afforded by the crit gives you room to so. If you don't get the crit you can act like you always have. Since the information on the shield size comes after a cast and as part of your normal healing activity, the crit is always actionable.

With something like parry it never gives guaranteed information about the future. The tank can have some variety of fantastical "Super Parry!" with a 90% chance of occurring that mitigates all damage and heals them to full and you still can't rely on that the way you can a shield. This is because you won't find out until it's too late. Parry and things like it are not readily actionable. At no moment can you say "Oh yeah. We don't have to heal that damage Super Parry! will take care of it"

You also can't try to "Fish" for parries, that is willingly take a bunch of 0 damage hits and save any parries you get for later. You can with shields. You can cast a bunch of admittingly MP inefficient Aldos that do nothing, in hopes of getting the crit. Even when the target(s) aren't actively taking damage. Then if it crits, you still get value from that crit so long as damage occurs in the eternity that is a 30s shield.

[Pells]

Parry is a terrible analogy. [...] Since you know this for sure you can act appropriately. Redirecting your time and resources if the extra mitigation afforded by the crit gives you room to so. If you don't get the crit you can act like you always have. Since the information on the shield size comes after a cast and as part of your normal healing activity, the crit is always actionable.

This makes a crit adlo more comparable to Bloodletter or Shield Swipe. Neither of which I ever hear complaints about being unreliable.