Geomancer

[MirronTulaxia]

1. It wasn't a contradiction so much as an addition.

2. You don't seem to understand the point I was making then, because what I've been arguing against is, at least how I've read it, that Geomancer specifically will not be any role other than Caster. With regards to "it wouldn't be the first time" it can be used that way. I acknowledge it head on and still stand by that. That doesn't mean discussion is moot though. It just means that one path is covered, not that all possible branches of discussion are covered.

3. I'd need you to actually cite where I brought up Blue Mage to get an idea of what my point there was. Bringing something up out of context means you're probably not getting the point.

As an aside, generally my bullet points are based in the order in which I arrive at a thought as I'm reading through your post. Usually this means one per paragraph but sometimes you make multiple points in one paragraph that I want to comment on.

[Archwizard]

I'd need you to actually cite where I brought up Blue Mage to get an idea of what my point there was. Bringing something up out of context means you're probably not getting the point.

It was literally.

In the post.

I quoted.

I mean if we are discussing evidence nothing says it's absolutely going to be a Caster, which was my point. People were calling Red Mage as a tank, as a healer, as a new role, none of that happened. Blue Mage being Limited was completely out of nowhere. Dancer was pegged as a healer, melee, or tank, we got ranged. Dark Knight? Samurai? Gunbreaker? I mean, you can throw a dart at the board of jobs and chances are a noticeable amount of people called the job as something other than what we got. None of this is to say it absolutely will be a healer, but that people are too quick to write it off for reasons that are ultimately tied to their own feelings on what is and isn't valid for it.

It wasn't "out of context", and that doesn't mean "I'm not getting it," it means you're not communicating your meaning effectively because you keep breaking it down into smaller arguments that often read as contradictory to each other without actually saying your singular thesis that they support, and seemingly forgetting where you were going with it. From what I can tell, you're here to be contrarian and nitpick arguments, not make a singular point toward the main discussion like "It should/shouldn't be a healer," and you don't need to tell us that "They're gonna do what they're gonna do" because all that point does is try to dismiss the discussion.

Your thought process isn't cohesive, or constructive. It's quite frustrating.