Firestarter

[RonPierce]

I hope people aren't making the mistake of casting Fire 3 just because it has a higher number than Fire 1. Its an honest mistake though but when you look at the numbers of mp, time casting, and damage, Fire 3 is only worth it during Firestarter procs and to get a full stack of Astral fire while in full stack of Umbral.

I like how they made all the spells have a purpose from 1 - 50 and still be used. Only issue is that the naming is a bit confusing... Fire 1 is single target, Fire 2 is less damage than Fire 1 and AOE, and Fire 3 is single target but doesn't replace the use of Fire 1 due to cast time and mp even though it does more damage. Think they could have worked out some better names.

I'd have expected, given past naming schemes, Fire II would actually be Firega, and IDK, Fire III could have just been called anything else with a fiery context. Same with cures, there should be a Curega.

[Allyrion]

I'd have expected, given past naming schemes, Fire II would actually be Firega, and IDK, Fire III could have just been called anything else with a fiery context. Same with cures, there should be a Curega.

Should be Fire, Fira, Firaga or Blizzard, Blizzara Blizzaga etc.
That's the standard FF naming scheme.

[Braxy]

Should be Fire, Fira, Firaga or Blizzard, Blizzara Blizzaga etc.
That's the standard FF naming scheme.

Actually in FFXI, there were both. Fire, Fire 2, Fire 3, and Fire 4 were progressively stronger single-target spells. Firaga, Firaga 2, Firaga 3 were progressively stronger AOE spells.

[RonPierce]

Yeah generally its like the main spell is whatever element it is or spell name it wants to take, then the AOE version adds aga (or ega depending on the game). I don't quite remember how they handled purely stronger nuke versions of spells. Personally I'd prefer a whole new spell name to separate the varied abilities that are just more potent/costly, because the I II III system confuses new players into thinking they're replacements.