Fair enough. That said, I guess just I'd rather start with simply "What seems fun and fitting for a MCH, specifically?" rather than defaulting immediately to mirrors of existing abilities or returned Role Actions, if that makes sense?
Last edited by Shurrikhan; 12-31-2022 at 12:19 PM.


The original 3.0 MCH was good as a "base", if anything it give the class a "unique" style of play. The reason why it was so ill received was because they decide to apply the same style to BRD. Most people playing BRD at the time understandably played it because of the mobility it has, so understandably they got pissed. And I think SE took that as people just don't like the style so when they revert BRD, they also revert MCH. So BRD got its identity back, while MCH ... MCH had nothing, its original vision got scrapped and now it's struggle in the twilight zone between several things while not be able to settle to be anything.
Honestly, over the year it's one of the decision I think most baffling. At that point, BRD was unique in its style, and so MCH. I never understood why they have to insist of making them the same, first by changing BRD style into MCH, then revert MCH style into BRD instead of just developing 2 different unique paths. Note that I never said the 3.0 MCH was good or fun to play, it needed work. But stripping its original vision isn't one of those work.
I'm a little confused by this. Gauss Barrel and Wanderer's Minuet were identical mechanics, sure, but nothing about the ammo or MCH's formerly faux-combos were "the same style," and that survived until Shadowbringers (an expansion after BRD "got its identity back," if one wanted to so fixate on a single ability), well after their rotational identities were otherwise at their most distinct. (The only increasedly shared grounds were from Role Actions --Ballad/Paeon and Promotion being unfortunately absorbed into the shared Refresh/Tactician-- but that affected only support tools, not the job's own gameplay).The original 3.0 MCH was good as a "base", if anything it give the class a "unique" style of play. The reason why it was so ill received was because they decide to apply the same style to BRD. Most people playing BRD at the time understandably played it because of the mobility it has, so understandably they got pissed. And I think SE took that as people just don't like the style so when they revert BRD, they also revert MCH. So BRD got its identity back, while MCH ... MCH had nothing, its original vision got scrapped and now it's struggle in the twilight zone between several thing while struggle to be anything.
On both counts... ???I never understood why they have to insist of making them the same, first by changing BRD style into MCH, then revert MCH style into BRD...
I... think... I agree? I'm just really having trouble making sense of your frames of reference here.Note that I never said the 3.0 MCH was good or fun to play, it needed work. But stripping its original vision isn't one of those work.


Yep, defnitely. I feel that MCH kinda favor the physical elements, instead of magical, so it would make sense to have Palisade back to help tanks in a different way that BRD can do with Paean.
Or perhaps, instead of an extra mitigation action, it could be an aoe shield, since that would be an unique utility niche, if we don't count Improvisation's shield that can only be usded in a reliable way during downtime.
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
Cookie Policy
This website uses cookies. If you do not wish us to set cookies on your device, please do not use the website. Please read the Square Enix cookies policy for more information. Your use of the website is also subject to the terms in the Square Enix website terms of use and privacy policy and by using the website you are accepting those terms. The Square Enix terms of use, privacy policy and cookies policy can also be found through links at the bottom of the page.

Reply With Quote

