Post ascension Bishop build

So you went line by line without a point, great. Here's my argument again. Assess an attacking bishop as an attacker. When building a party, they don't compete with HS for a slot, they compete with the weakest attacker, same as when building a party considering any other attacking class, taking into account everything the character has to offer. If you think its crazy to make an hsless bishop, that's certainly your business, I've never done it. But I think its a lot more than crazy to jump down my throat over a hypothetical I made to prove a point that you find expedient to ignore.

To review:
You admit a bishop can exceed the attacking power of other classes (after unnecessary arm twisting)
I imagined a scenario where you can choose a bishop as an attacker for your party, or you can choose a weaker character of another class (with no other useful skills). If you choose the bishop, you are maximizing your party's exp. If you choose the other class, you are irrationally discriminating against the bishop, and slowing down exp for your whole party. If you want to be irrational you can, but it doesn't make me any less right

It's efficiency princess. You build off your classes strengths, which would be the support role. Not a mule role, but your perogative should be support. If you don't like it, make another class because if you keep up with this royalty attitude, people aren't going to take you to boss runs.

The only princess here is the one barking off commands about how other people should make their characters, I want everyone to be treated fairly, regardless of the path they took to create the character before ending up at the base of your ivory tower of irrationality asking for a party.

Further down your line of reasoning: it is strictly inefficent for you to play a DK. You'd do more damage as a BM. You have no useful party buff anymore (in fact its a negative since it replaces self hb). Delete your character and cry, since you are no longer being efficient, and therefore the entire game is now pointless for you (aparently).

Note: I think that line of reasoning is dumb and its why I've aligned the opposing side of the argument with it. If a particular view of optimization is not the only concern in making characters, we can have fun. It's okay to optimize when you're wasting other people's time at a boss run or party play area. But to demand a particular build out of every class and character - and then to discriminate against dissenters especially when it's to your own detriment - is really, really stupid.

There are a lot of influencing factors that let you choose a class, a bishop's influences do not include "1v1 DPS".

How far down the dps list do we go before 1v1 dps is no longer allowed to be an influencing factor? Because if you stop right before bishop, you're racist. Merely having another job we can do doesn't mean we can't do others. Bishops are a versatile class like that.

The party skills that you are selfishly avoiding do not offset the damage increase that the bishop may have

That's your opinion. They're two completely different things, and we have no objective metric to compare them. How much 1v1 damage is max bless worth? Dispel is worth how much party DPS?

Hey, here's an idea, when YOU make a bishop you can make that decision for yourself.

Maybe you'll care to explain, by your logic, why bucc's were taken rather than attack bishops? Since it's all about numbers and not other strengths the class may offer.

In the LHC hypothetical, the bucc can't be taken logically. The point of the hypothetical was to illustrate the irrationality of discriminating against attacking bishops. It's not all about numbers, it's about everything a character has to offer - and one of those things that bishops can offer is damage. I created a hypothetical, of which there are many, where the attacking bishop was an option worth taking. Point proved.

I'm starting to think this is really a bitter jealousy thing. Most other classes aren't good for anything besides attacking, and constantly have to deal with silly damage tier measures that put a ranking on everything they're good for. Now I come in and show categorically that bishops can attack - and with a funding advantage, better than other classes - and some people just cant handle it. They snap, lose all narrative function, and start responding line by line arguing about the viability of hypothetical man in the real world and random scenarios I couldn't care less about.

You know what the real world concern here is? When a bishop with 100% int shows up, outdamages most of the 5-person LHC party, and is still not allowed in because "they already have hs". When another powerful bishop goes bossing and - if they even get to go - is excluded from the main party in favor of doubling up a weak incarnation of a class already in the party because "bishops aren't attackers" - even though the run would've been quicker with the attacking bishop in the main party getting the right buffs.

It's because of irrational preconceptions. It's because of spoiled brats like you who think a class gets a slot by merit of the class it is, rather than what it can do for the party or run.

Now unless you have something that's not "I wouldn't do that," "thats dumb," or "I have deep-seated confidence issues regarding my obsolete class," kindly refrain from wasting my time again.