Rescue is Griefing

[Packetdancer]

Keep in mind also that you're only saying that, that it's a part of our job as healers to do so, simply because Rescue exists. Prior to SB, this mindset did not exist. It was created only bc of the skill itself, concentrating responsability on the healer and making people forget that no, it's not our job to save a guy from going to the red puddle. They should know better, that's part of the game.

I mean, true, yes, but I feel like saying "people only believe they should use this tool because the tool exists; before the tool existed, people didn't think it was their responsibility to press that button in combat" is a tiny bit reductive. I mean, by that standard, I didn't think it was my responsibility as a white mage to put down the lilybell in endgame content back in Shadowbringers; I only think I should put it down before repeated damage now because it exists to be put down!

Except what you're describing is the healer's own job description: to heal missing health and keeping people alive.

The part I bolded is the key issue, I think; many people look at "this person will die if I don't Rescue them" and consider it part of that "my responsibility is to keep people alive". I think that's the main point of disagreement, basically.

But, rather than Yet More Arguing[tm] about whether or not Rescue should be removed... I'd like to ask those who hate Rescue whether they would similarly hate the hypothetical alternative I proposed earlier in the thread.

E.g., instead of Rescue moving someone, the person it is used on gets a short buff -- let's call it "Ruin Denied" or "Salvation", and make it 10s.

If, while they have that buff, they drop below 1 hitpoint (e.g. would die) -- and heck, let's include 'falling off the arena' in this -- they are instead left alive with 1 hitpoint and slingshotted to where the healer who offered Salvation is. Let's say this also functionally works like a teleport; they don't fall into a pit if they zip over it. They are also given the more severe rez weakness debuff (to avoid it being deliberately used to cheese mechanics without consequence, as "second Holmgang" or something), but they can also be given a couple of seconds of the "Transcendent" invulnerability you get immediately post-rez.

If they had a plan to move to safety and do so, hey, the buff drops off after 10s and nothing happens. No harm, no foul, the player is not repositioned.

If the buff does fire and move them to the healer's side... that would've happened anyway, because the buff only fires if you would have otherwise died. So you would've ended up where the healer is regardless, because that's how rez works: you appear at the spot where the healer was standing when they rezzed you.

"Salvation" is basically just skipping the 2400 MP and 8 second cast time portion of the process.

Obviously, it wouldn't work in situations where Rescue could let you position someone for a mechanic, and wouldn't let you yoink someone out of LB3 animation lock without consequence (e.g. the Brink of Death rez debuff). Though you could at least prevent the person in LB3 animation lock from dying.

Still, it would work for a great many of the scenarios where Rescue is used to try to save someone... and it would at least give healers a way to attempt to not have to spend 2400 MP and potentially 8 seconds of cast time (or Swiftcast) to get someone back up.

And by virtue of it being a proc off of a status effect, it would be considerably more reliable than Rescue is.

(Moreover, watching someone plummet to their death in Aglaia only to have them bungee back up and rocket over to the healer when Salvation procced would be at least a little hilarious to see.)