The Raise Tax, and how to address it.

[Valence]

Often time in these kind of topic I think people just miss the point. And it's probably due to the min/max mindset that people try come up with all different angle and logic to justify the "I should be able to do more damage!!", which is what it always come down to. And it's not just the raise tax, but the range tax, the melee tax .etc

For me it's simple if you just view it as a point buy system. Every job has the same point in the pool, and it doesn't matter what you put the point, a point more put into one area (raise, mobility) is a point less you can point less you can put in another area (DPS). It doesn't matter you think that point is well spent or not, it doesn't change the fact it's a point that spent there and you can't spent at other places. It's like if you build a DnD Paladin and decide to put a few points in INT since you don't want to be stupid, but a smart PLD naturally gonna has less STR or CHR and that fact won't change no matter how much you want to argue a Paladin should not have low CHR.

Alright then tell me, if this is all about points, why does SMN do output as much damage as ranged physical jobs (and more than MCH even), when it puts point into mobility, uptime AND raise AND heavy party healing? Meanwhile on BRD or MCH, I only have points in uptime. Not in raising, not in healing, and certainly not in mobility. By that logic SMN should be doing 30% less damage than every ranged physical job. I took SMN as the most extreme example but it also works for RDM which offers way better support than rphys, but I could also take DNC that has actual support compared to the pitiful options we have on BRD/MCH, and yet it does the same party damage contribution.

Similarly on the melee's end, why does MNK output the same damage than other melees in spite of investing points into Mantra?

The reality is that there is no rational rule behind this like points and investment into feats. It's just arbitrary.