Possible to make crafter gear able to be worn by battle classes?

Fear the tank wielding a fry pan with a wok as a shield, complete with a chef look. Will be fun glamour though...hah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyVal

I do not agree with this. Please let our classes keep their tiny slivers of visual identity that they have.

---

Normally I'd agree with this statement, but when crafter gear gets universal sets like the Artisan's gear. The visual identity is already gone because you have to use the same glamour for every class anyway. Plus, a lot of the glamours are honestly seen for a brief moment as people usually don't stay on those sets for long. Example. Person in need: "Hey 'FC mate' can you craft me this?" FC mate: "Sure" *Switches to BSM for 30 seconds, crafts item, then switches back to DoW class* "Here you go" Person in need: "Thanks!"

Sometimes the outfits are seen longer when people are mass producing crafts in large populated towns, but honestly, I've noticed most people opt to glamour over these crafter only sets anyway.

Very few people seem to even purchase this gear off the market board as well. If people could glamour them to DoW/DoM classes, the demand and production of these items would significantly increase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordLucavi

It has been stated by the developers several times that NO, they will NEVER allow DoM classes to glamour DOW gear, and vice versa, because they still want classes to actually look somewhat like their role (robes and such for mages, jerkins/jackets/shirts for light armor, mail and plate for heavy armor, etc). Which is odd, because some crafted gear and the civilian clothing from the Gold Saucer can be glamoured on anything.

---

I think it's more because the Devs have an idea or theme that they would personally like to stick with for how they feel classes should look like; but they occasionally give into the demand for glamour items to make those who feel 'glamour is real endgame' happier. Or rather, to put it in another way. The Devs want their game to be like 'this', while a majority of the player base would rather the Devs make their game like 'this'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LineageRazor

SE is likely shying away from allowing crafter/gatherer gear from being worn by DoM/DoW because of the big stink it caused with DoM/DoW spiritbonding in high-level instances. So, I don't think it's likely we'll be going back to that.

That said, for GLAMOUR, I totally agree that SE should do away with the class restriction nonsense. There was SOME justification in it in the beginning, in that they wanted tank classes to look armored and mage classes to look clothy, but all that went right out the window as soon tanks started glamouring bikinis and such.

Plus, it would save the developers from having to waste time creating recipes like Uraeus Coat, whose sole purpose is to be a glamour item that looks like Kirimu Coat.

---

I already foresee a future in which most of the new glamour items wil just suffer the same fate as the Kirimu Coat. It wouldn't surprise me at all if a lot of the new crafting recipes was job only gear, that can be used on all classes for the sake of glamour.

Despite what I just said to another poster, I've personally quit wearing the Kirimu Coat on my Bard because the class identity is gone. So I completely get where both sides are coming from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moqi

It actually saves them time to do it like this so they can come up with 4 different recipies for the same gear model, which takes a lot less time than creating 4 different coats. Same reason why they make stuff not dyeable - they wait a few months and then put a new recipie for some old piece of gear and brand it as new content.

The class identity is so not why they're doing this.

---

I would have to concur that class identity is not the reason. Perhaps for relic and tome theme gear, but not for standard craftables.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nektulos-Tuor

Way better then the Tank in a Bikini with a ducky sword.

---

Bikini tanks are appropriate though. Why else would they be 'flash'ing mobs? *wink*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tymora

Fear the tank wielding a fry pan with a wok as a shield, complete with a chef look. Will be fun glamour though...hah

---

Way better then the Tank in a Bikini with a ducky sword.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nektulos-Tuor

snip

---

I'm not saying change is bad. I'm saying that not everything needs to be available for everyone so that our looks become one big melting pot of nothing. When everyone has everything, nobody has anything unique. So far every class/job has TWO unique sets available to them. If that's enough to make someone upset, maybe they're just a little sensitive.

Honestly, I think the general "DoW/DoM" restriction is stupid. Just like with gender locks. Those don't provide uniqueness, they just provide an unnecessary wall. What does provide uniqueness, are armor sets specifically tailored to individual races, classes, and jobs. There's a big difference between "We don't think casters should wear plate armor" and "We designed this set specifically to represent a weaver/paladin/roegadyn."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpiritMuse

I've always found their "casters in plate armor" excuse to be kind of nonsensical considering we can tank in dresses and bikinis. Class identity indeed.

---

Tanks in bikinis undo all of the arguments against DoW gear being available for DoM and the other way around (for glam ofc).

Actually the new 220 gear (Eikon) for caster can become an "armor" if you dyed it with metallic silver (But seriously the top is really looks like steel plate).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ephier

Not sure where to post this, but just a slight suggestion for the game. Would it be possible to make crafter sets (lvl 50 and 60 sets) able to be worn by battle classes. Some of the crafter gear sets are the nicest in the game, yet hardly able to be seen due to being locked behind its specific crafter. Adding the Disciple of War and Disciple of Magic tag and leaving just the respective class tag on it makes it so you still have to craft the other sets if you want it for your other crafters.

Please consider. \o/

---

Anything that gives people more glamour options is a good thing in my book. I support the OP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyVal

I'm not saying change is bad. I'm saying that not everything needs to be available for everyone so that our looks become one big melting pot of nothing. When everyone has everything, nobody has anything unique. So far every class/job has TWO unique sets available to them. If that's enough to make someone upset, maybe they're just a little sensitive.

Honestly, I think the general "DoW/DoM" restriction is stupid. Just like with gender locks. Those don't provide uniqueness, they just provide an unnecessary wall. What does provide uniqueness, are armor sets specifically tailored to individual races, classes, and jobs. There's a big difference between "We don't think casters should wear plate armor" and "We designed this set specifically to represent a weaver/paladin/roegadyn."

---

This brings up a question: Should equipment get a version of the affinity system from 1.0? As in, classes can equip any gear that is not artifact/tomestone gear, but gain no stats unless they're of the class it is meant for (so if I want to equip an eyepatch of striking on my WAR, it can be done but the WAR gains no stats from it). That would open more options while still encouraging people to equip the gear meant for them.

I like and support this idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyVal

I'm not saying change is bad. I'm saying that not everything needs to be available for everyone so that our looks become one big melting pot of nothing. When everyone has everything, nobody has anything unique. So far every class/job has TWO unique sets available to them. If that's enough to make someone upset, maybe they're just a little sensitive.

Honestly, I think the general "DoW/DoM" restriction is stupid. Just like with gender locks. Those don't provide uniqueness, they just provide an unnecessary wall. What does provide uniqueness, are armor sets specifically tailored to individual races, classes, and jobs. There's a big difference between "We don't think casters should wear plate armor" and "We designed this set specifically to represent a weaver/paladin/roegadyn."

---

There is truth to this, but there is also false. Due to the fact people like different things. Truth is, everything could be made available to everyone, however because people naturally like different things people usually end up looking different.

There is gear though that we get that is special and unique to us. Its called Artifact and Racial gear. Everything else however should not be restricted.

Each class/job deserves a few outfits that are exclusive to it, and which exemplify a signature look for that class/job alone. That's what the artifact gear is for, and I completely agree with those specific items being glamour restricted to only be worn on the job they're designed for.

I do think SE way overdid it when they decided to limit all glamouring to the classes/jobs that can wear items directly. Most of those direct equipping restrictions weren't set for the sake of looks in the first place. They're just a way to ensure people have job-appropriate stats. Since that's a concern that doesn't apply to glamour, restrictions based on it shouldn't apply to glamour.

That said, though, if I'm interpreting the OP correctly and it's referring to the gear I'm thinking of, that gear is the DoH equivalent of AF gear. It's among the very few items where I actually agree with the class restriction.

As much as I would love to wear my weaver pimp suit on my scholar, I would like MORE class-specific gear and styles, not less. So this gets a no from me.