New Age Healer Question. Whm Vs Sch?

[Purrsian]

So, I am putting this thread here. To Do an overall consensus(i so spelled that wrong)
What is better as a healer scholar vs Whitemage, Whitemage vs scholar..
So many people have different versions of this. Some say scholar is by far better for Light arts, and the ability to do things Whm and RDM cannot.
Some Say White mage, for the fact of large amounts of mana, my spells that do high amounts of heals.

Some say Sch is the New Age Class that beats all and white mage is a gimp..

Some say Whitemages will always be the number one role of a PT and have scholars just be another sub.. What do you all think?

[Rothy]

Re: New Age Healer Question. Whm Vs Sch?

Both can cover the healing job perfectly. Although SCH can swap over to Nuking/Enfeebling quite easily.

White Mage - FFXIclopedia
Scholar - FFXIclopeda

First up.. Whoever says WHM is a "gimp" obviously is missing something in the head.. WHM is still an excellent healer and fills the position perfectly (Obviously >.>) Don't forget WHM also gets teleport spells which are good for making money, but also for easy access to EXP areas for your whole party. WHM also has the Haste spell, which is just awesome.

In a lower level perspective, I'd pick a WHM over a SCH for healing.. simply because WHM gets -na spells earlier and I think they get cure spells quicker to. Also.. WHM has access to a larger range of gear then SCH does.


But then again, SCH uses the gear it has well and can swap over to nuking and enfeebling at any time. SCH can also gets Accession at level 40 that allows it to use the next healing or enhancing spell on your whole party, pretty neat. The storm spells work wonders in Manaburns if you ever get invited to them and the ability to obtain regen spells before WHM does is also a plus. OH! Can't forget Sublimation either.


Personally, I'd go WHM/SCH for the overall utility of the WHM main combined with the MP saving froom the SCH subjob.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: New Age Healer Question. Whm Vs Sch?

I look at it this way:

WHM is a straight-up healer and in the long run, SCH healing is more about preventing damage taken.

Before 56, in EXP/melee PTs a SCH will see a varied experience. You may be called upon to do nuking or healing. Before 30, its almost always about nuking. At least, it was for me since I opted to duo to 25 on worms. After 56 when you can start Accession Stoneskin spam, you'll be steadily invited to be a healer. This may be problematic if you're taking this job as your first to 75 since you could fall behind on your Enfeebling and Elemental magic skills. Wasn't so bad for me since I had already taken RDM to the 60s prior.

Both WHM and SCH are desireable jobs in the long run, but SCH is a bit more flexible for what it can do so if you want to do more than just be a healer, I'd say go with SCH. SCH sucks on the melee front, though, WHM likely sees better campaign EXP than SCH for the fact they're pretty adept melees. This aspect of WHM doesn't show in PTs, but elsewhere, they can really do well with a club.

[Vyuru]

Re: New Age Healer Question. Whm Vs Sch?

Whm/Sch and Sch/whatever are both equally good IMO. They simply do things a little differently at the higher levels is all.

[ospeff]

Re: New Age Healer Question. Whm Vs Sch?

Scholar overall is better for XP PTs IMO

[Ameroth]

Re: New Age Healer Question. Whm Vs Sch?

Personally, I'd like a WHM healing me if I'm tanking anything besides meripo mobs. Nothing wrong with SCH, and I've been cured by many, but nothing beats good old cure V when I'm ailing. Plus WHM gets access to the highest tier of protect/shell, and the best regen spells.

They both have trade offs and advantages, but in the long run, I feel safer with a WHM behind me.

[Illuen]

Re: New Age Healer Question. Whm Vs Sch?

Quite a few people seem to be forgetting that Scholar doesn't get haste, period. While that isn't a problem for a while, by 70+, most melee jobs will be bitching if they don't have Haste on them at all times. That spell tips quite a bit into the White Mage cup.

[ospeff]

Re: New Age Healer Question. Whm Vs Sch?

That's actually the only thing WHMs have going for them.

[Ameroth]

Re: New Age Healer Question. Whm Vs Sch?

That's actually the only thing WHMs have going for them.

Yep. The only thing. Ospeff has spoken.

Not the reraises, or the highest tier pro/shell, or the most cost-effective cure spell in the game, or the highest tier curaga, or the best regens, or the highest healing magic skill, or all the -na spells they get before any other job, or erase pre-37... No.

Haste. That's it...

Jeezus.

[Vyuru]

Re: New Age Healer Question. Whm Vs Sch?

Not to mention that Whm/Sch has a fair amount of self sustainability.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: New Age Healer Question. Whm Vs Sch?

Quite a few people seem to be forgetting that Scholar doesn't get haste, period. While that isn't a problem for a while, by 70+, most melee jobs will be bitching if they don't have Haste on them at all times. That spell tips quite a bit into the White Mage cup.

Contrary to what you might think, people will gladly accept more damage mitigation in the face of losing Haste. Its not like we have a shortage of Haste gear or BRDs at 70+.

I've seen "It sucks SCH doesn't get Haste" but I've gotten little other than "[Scholar][Impossibly to gauge]" in most of my melee merit PTs.

Also, SCH with Haste would pretty much destroy both RDM and WHM - that's why we don't have it. I wouldn't want to be burning out my Accession charges for another spell anyway. Maintaining Stoneskin and Phalanx on a PT is demanding enough for my stratagems.

Not the reraises, or the highest tier pro/shell, or the most cost-effective cure spell in the game, or the highest tier curaga, or the best regens, or the highest healing magic skill, or all the -na spells they get before any other job, or erase pre-37... No.

Having the highest tier in something doesn't always mean its the best. Protectra V doesn't really bring as much to the table as Shellra V does.

Cure V cures a lot of HP, but at a high MP cost. SCH can do Rapture Cure III to get close to a Cure IV without getting near the MP cost of it. The highlight of Cure V is that it doesn't generate enmity any more than Cure III does, making it better than Cure IV.

WHM getting Cursna or Stona sooner isn't really a dealbreaker considering we avoid mobs that do those moves in EXP.

Healing Skill is quite possibly the skill set most devoid of meaning in this game, otherwise RDM wouldn't be taking WHM's spot in merit PTs. Cure III under /WHM on any job is just as good as a WHM's Cure III before potency gear. So why are we raving about healing skill here?

SCH has a painfully slow learning curve to deal with on Cures but in the long run, it competes rather well with WHM. After Cure III, SCH is on even footing. People who automatically go on to using the next tier of Cures as soon as they get them isn't really that good of a healer, even if I was a WHM, I don't think I'd be favoring Cure V as much as Cure III and with /SCH, I'd be using Cure III even more.

What does Protectra V and Cure V mean in the face of Accession Stoneskin and Phalanx? Seriously, why would SCH need to dump something the level of Cure V on an ally if they've mitigated up to 250 damage before that party member actually took damage? That's why they don't get Cure V. SCHs are there more to mitigate damage than toss out cures.

SCH actually gets Regen and Regen II before WHM does and can AoE them at 40+. That's a 240 HP to the entire PT for 72 MP. Can Regen III do that? AoE Status cures are somewhat of a novelty to SCH, but its still worth pointing out they can do it.

While it may be fun to mock Ospeff, WHM's only real edge over SCH for PTs is Haste in the long term and earlier status cures and cures in the short term. That's it. Comparing WHM and SCH purely on Cures is foolish at best, given when a SCH is played right, they'll be tossing out cures far less in a EXP PT than a WHM would. We're more about preventing damage in long run, not curing damage.

And can WHM manaburn? Nope. SCH can go from Pure Healer to Nuker with one simple change. WHM beat SCH on melee solo and Campaign EXP, though. SCH has no real skills with weapons, I'd rather Campaign on my BST.

[wrongfeifong]

Re: New Age Healer Question. Whm Vs Sch?

I personally think whitemage is a lot better then SCH.

One critical point everyone don't know/forgot is that WHM CAN DO CURE V!!!!!! Cure V have the emit of a Cure III. You can't rely SCH on long term healing on something that hit like a truck because the sch will pull hate!.

Not to mention, Cure IV + accession = power of a curega III .... whm have curega IV + Divine seal!

For one, whatever SCH can do in healing roles, WHM can do better, because they have access to better healing range armors.

Secondly, let's remember that a full merit whm is a lot better in terms of using Barspell + speed of cures.

I like WHM overall, since curega IV rocks! and Cure V rocks. Then pro V shell V rocks + their bar spell >>>> sch. (not to mention devotion!)


Seriously, if you think sch/whatever is good. Then what would make WHM/SCH goes? When the WHM got everything the SCH can do and have (beside Accension stoneskin + phalanx and migrate 28 dmg per hit? it isn't like nothing a regen can heal back. )

[ospeff]

Re: New Age Healer Question. Whm Vs Sch?

Yep. The only thing. Ospeff has spoken.

Not the reraises, or the highest tier pro/shell, or the most cost-effective cure spell in the game, or the highest tier curaga, or the best regens, or the highest healing magic skill, or all the -na spells they get before any other job, or erase pre-37... No.

Haste. That's it...

Jeezus.

If you need to raise your group is bad. SCH are better at -na spells and erase because they can AOE them without the 10 minute cooldown on divine seal, they can also make their Cure IV equivalent to a Cure V with Celerity. AOE Regen II from SCH is better than any Curaga or Regen III, and SCH can make their Cure IV AOE anyway.

RDM's have Refresh, Convert, and Haste. > WHM

If WHMs did not have Haste they would be without doubt the worst merit/xp PT healers, it is fact.

The only people defending WHM, are WHM mains. I have 75 WHM, RDM, and SCH. And I say for merits RDM > SCH = WHM (ONLY because of haste). I also have a 75 NIN, WAR & PLD so I can say which healer I prefer from a tank's perspective, as well as 75 DRG, SAM , DRK, among others, so I can say which is preferable for DD jobs which make up most of a merit group. Go play the jobs before spewing nonesense, you know nothing about the game.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: New Age Healer Question. Whm Vs Sch?

[How to lose friends and alienate people.]

Fixed.

Sorry, I had to.

Seriously, get off your "ZOMG I have so many 75s that I know what I'm talking about" bullshit.

WHM isn't that bad off, geez.

[ospeff]

Re: New Age Healer Question. Whm Vs Sch?

It's obvious I am more experience than Ameroth, he thinks having stona/viruna/cursna/etc earlier matters when no one ever fights mobs that use those moves. I think it's because his only 75 is a PLD and he imagines that people go to other camps besides the ones he did on his only 75, or perhaps he thinks people still level up in pre-toau camps? Again, lack of experience.