Please Nerf Shield Healer Pure Heals

[SweetPete]

Yeah I can definitely see them reworking scholar to remove the regen from them and nerf their pure healing to compensate for more powerful shields. Why call it a shield healer if we’re going to mostly use pure heals and regens? Makes absolutely no sense. Scholar will get a huge rework to be on par with sage when it comes to shielding. I’m sure of it.

[Calysto]

Hi there.

i'm a casual healer (as in i don't really go for high end content), and my job of choice there is sch.

i'm not really sure what to make of this distinction of barrier/pure heal.

Sure you can lower the healing potency of the subclass, but that pose some gameplay issues.

Proactive healing is a thing, but barriers aren't infinite(and if they were, what would be the point ?)
Sometime the cast time of a "raidbuster" is not enough(if there's one) and if you got a bit of lag, often pointless. I can't count all the times i try to apply a barrier only to have it register on my party AFTER the damage.

So what do you do then ?
Keep the barrier up full time ? the loss is absurd and nobody want that, i think.
Know all the fights to predict incoming damage ? that's an incredible skill gap needed there (if i consider memory a skill, i know mine is pretty low)

And what about mechanics that down your party (like cid from orbone or doggos from bosja, math robots) : your whole party is down to 1 hp and you have 3 cast max fo fill them back.
As a "pure heal", no problem, even if the second healer is down. In the same position, the devs can't doom your party if you've only got a single barrier healer.
that means a barrier have to be anle to tpe the party in 3 gcd ; tank included.

What about unpredictable damage ? badly placed aoe, mine, players not knowing mechanics, etc...

At that point, it's probably enough potency for most content.

[SoraLuna]

[...]
So what do you do then ?
Keep the barrier up full time ? the loss is absurd and nobody want that, i think.
Know all the fights to predict incoming damage ? that's an incredible skill gap needed there (if i consider memory a skill, i know mine is pretty low)

And what about mechanics that down your party (like cid from orbone or doggos from bosja, math robots) : your whole party is down to 1 hp and you have 3 cast max fo fill them back.
As a "pure heal", no problem, even if the second healer is down. In the same position, the devs can't doom your party if you've only got a single barrier healer.
that means a barrier have to be anle to tpe the party in 3 gcd ; tank included.
[...]

One solution could be a simple oGCD/Faerie Gauge spell to transform current given shields to pure healing, consuming the shield.

[Payadopa]

That's a fair assessment to make. I'd argue that everything outside 8 mans is easy anyway and that I think it's okay if some jobs are harder to play than others. We have that with DPS classes too and it's fine.

[Saefinn]

As someone who runs DRK and uses Living Dead... please don't.

Lustrate. It's what I used to do in HW. As I am using 2.0 SCH as a point of reference, Lustrate I wouldn't expect to be nerfed into the ground.

They said they would make the split between shields and pure heals, yet mentioned that it would not divide healers in 2 different new roles. Them mentioning this might imply that healers (especially SCH and AST I presume) will receive significant changes, but not to the point of creating 2 sub roles.

I don't know if it will mean significant changes, which is my worry just because it seems like they already consider WHM as a pure healer and SCH as a shield healer and AST in the middle but of course how they're played contradicts that. I hope it does mean significant changes to achieve the distinction, but of course i have my concerns and feel certain changes are need to make it possible.

-snip-

I'm semi-casual. I think the best point of reference for this distinction is 2.0 because is the last they did this successfully IMO. And we had to take all those scenarios into consideration too. So I am proposing an evolution of this, if they do an evolution of it, then they can achieve their goal IMO.

I think part of the problem is the perception that a shield has to be preemptive. The example I gave of how you might do a reactive heal, was that a shield can also be used to protect people as you're getting their health back up. I also referred to how Seraph could help me more help with that if her shields get a bit of buffing too. This was how I used to handle it, just using Succor or Adloquium and then use other healing tools to get the HP backup, but now out pet can help more with that.

A "shield" focus doesn't mean you cut out all potent heals just like a "pure" healer doesn't mean it can have useful shields (as there's situations where shields are needed/useful). As my example to quote above, Lustrate.

Taking the flip side. Although WHM is a "pure" healer, it still has shields from Divine Benison. Diurnal AST is a "pure" healer, but has Neutral Sect and Celestial Intersection. But I think at the current balance on SCH for "pure" and "shield" healing is off and is not fit for that distinction, it should be shield focused where the pure is secondary. And vice versa for a pure healer. So there can be some crossover. They'd need to nerf the pure side and buff the shield side enough to swap the focus.

[EaMett]

I could easily see this turning into direct healers healing everything. Shield healers DPS.

If you're just trading direct heal ogcds for shield ogcds, then nothing will change.

[ItMe]

If you're just trading direct heal ogcds for shield ogcds, then nothing will change.

I dunno man, shields are more proactive and direct is more reactive. I def play them different.

[ty_taurus]

I feel like no one's talking about how different OGCD shielding is. The main reason why Adloquium and Succor's shielding is so inconsequential when comparing it to pure healing or regens (besides potency differences) is because it also is competing with your DPS. Divine Benison, Celestial Intersection, and Seraph's shields all don't and thus actually can be valued as a form of damage negation. I feel like SCH would be such a better barrier healer if Adloquium and Succor dropped their healing and applied only shields as OGCD tools.

[ItMe]

I feel like no one's talking about how different OGCD shielding is. The main reason why Adloquium and Succor's shielding is so inconsequential when comparing it to pure healing or regens (besides potency differences) is because it also is competing with your DPS. Divine Benison, Celestial Intersection, and Seraph's shields all don't and thus actually can be valued as a form of damage negation. I feel like SCH would be such a better barrier healer if Adloquium and Succor dropped their healing and applied only shields as OGCD tools.

Oh my god I never (consciously) realized this.
This reframes the entire discussion for me!

[Saefinn]

I feel like no one's talking about how different OGCD shielding is. The main reason why Adloquium and Succor's shielding is so inconsequential when comparing it to pure healing or regens (besides potency differences) is because it also is competing with your DPS. Divine Benison, Celestial Intersection, and Seraph's shields all don't and thus actually can be valued as a form of damage negation. I feel like SCH would be such a better barrier healer if Adloquium and Succor dropped their healing and applied only shields as OGCD tools.

I like this suggestion and I think it has merit because our focus nowadays is more on oGCD's, so I think reversing the balance in that way sounds like it could be a principle that works. As you say it comes down to DPS and oGCD's are weaved. Moving the pure heals to GCD's would suggest you only use them when you have to. And would be more in line with how healers are played now, because although I use 2.0 as a point of reference, but in 2.0 we were more GCD focused so I think the solution of course should be an evolution of what we had made relevant existing content and balance.

Ah, an important distinction. I thought you meant needs across all SCH's "pure heals."
Thanks for elaborating.

No problem. I've updated the main post to clarify too as I realise I didn't make clear what kind of nerfing I mean.