Please do not lock Jobs to the Weapon Class that unlocks them.

[Carpe]

in real life samurai don't use a dam great axe do they? no they don't it about human history mix with Final fantasy history.

proof samurai used multiple weapons:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._1841-1934.jpg

from left to right:
SAM/ARC
SAM/GLA
SAM/LNC

ggnore

[Zenaku]

proof samurai used multiple weapons:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._1841-1934.jpg

Read one of my post i said that samurai use bow,polearm,GK That make sense ok allow them to use that but not every Wep in FFXIV. I'm ok with Class/job to use more then one Wep if it make sense to there Class/job.

[Sephr]

Sniper is a FFTA class that might fit the Archer specialisations. Purely off the top of my head, it could debuff enemies by targetting specific areas for one thing, or whatever. Would be handy if Lancer could have some kind of tanking specialisation, being as obviously they're harder to find. I don't think they all need to be previous FF jobs strictly, thats fairly unrealistic as we move forward.

One is that any new Job will require either a new Class to support it, or rebalancing and reassignment of the existing Jobs.

I think this is pretty much a given? As we move into new expansions we're bound to get new classes. Jobs are specializations of the current classes so it'd be somewhat tough to shoehorn samurai into any current model without adding a new class in some way. We already have musketeer and arcanist guilds ready for new classes.

The other issue is that we have non-intuitive, non-traditional weapon assignments. Red Mages can only use Staves/Scepters, even though they have always been able to use sword since the first Final Fantasy and in every Final Fantasy game since. And Thieves can only use hand-to-hand, even though they have always been able to at least use Daggers or small Swords in every Final Fantasy game also.

They're already planning to adjust the skill assignments of current classes, we might see Pugilist's thief skills moved elsewhere, or alternatively we might get a dagger-wielding class in the future. These specialisations are not just being made to shove as many classic jobs into the game as possible, they're being created to make our current classes work on more specific roles for party situations. We already know Fencer's a class in the .dats, perhaps we won't see RDM until it's released.

See. It's not so "fairly easy to do".

Much easier to balance and work in than trying to make the 'any job for any class' system balanced without really watering down the specialisations (and then pretty much removing the point of them which is to *make our current blank canvas classes work better in niches*)

Edit: Also, how come no one's commented on the brief reanalysis of what we've been told I did earlier (other than the guys that agreed)? It's all very well arguing over which system is better, but do you not think what was *actually written* was somewhat conclusive?

[Sorel]

Edit: Also, how come no one's commented on the brief reanalysis of what we've been told I did earlier (other than the guys that agreed)? It's all very well arguing over which system is better, but do you not think what was *actually written* was somewhat conclusive?

If you you give me a link I'll look it over for you, but I don't honestly recall the post you are referring to.

[Sorel]

I think this is pretty much a given? As we move into new expansions we're bound to get new classes. Jobs are specializations of the current classes so it'd be somewhat tough to shoehorn samurai into any current model without adding a new class in some way. We already have musketeer and arcanist guilds ready for new classes.

They're already planning to adjust the skill assignments of current classes, we might see Pugilist's thief skills moved elsewhere, or alternatively we might get a dagger-wielding class in the future. These specialisations are not just being made to shove as many classic jobs into the game as possible, they're being created to make our current classes work on more specific roles for party situations. We already know Fencer's a class in the .dats, perhaps we won't see RDM until it's released.

I see the logic of what you are saying. I disagree that the balancing would be simpler with the restrictions than without, but I trust you see where I am coming from in my argument even if you do not agree it.

As for Samurai ... using "the each Class gets 2 Job specializations" rule, it would be very easy for the Development Team to add the "Tachi-User" Class, and then have it be able to access the Ninja and Samurai Jobs. That would be fairly clean and simple. No argument there. It would look like this.

Tachi-User:

1. Samurai
2. Ninja

There is still a little trouble with Red Mage, though. Let's say that Fencer (Fencing Blade-User) does get implemented as a Class. Using the 2 Job specialization rule, the Red Mage Job gets assigned to it and some other Job ... say Swashbuckler. So it would look like this.

Fencer:

1. Red Mage
2. Swashbuckler

Looks neat, except that this means the Red Mage Job cannot use Staves, Scepters, or Wands, because as a Job they have been restricted the the Fencer Class. It's doable, but is that what we want?

[Sephr]

If you you give me a link I'll look it over for you, but I don't honestly recall the post you are referring to.

Yeah fair enough, thread's moving pretty quick.

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...l=1#post141275

(not sure if that'll work or not! It's #396 anyway)

Just was trying to really establish what the point they were trying to get across in that text was, being as I think it might've been misunderstood. They say something like "We don't want people to think of them as advanced classes" as opposed to outright saying something like "These are seperate from classes". It's more about the perception they don't want people to get from the fact that they'll be stronger than their base class at certain things. That's what I take from it anyway.

[Cairdeas]

Hey Everyone!

This is just a reminder to please avoid personal attacks when discussing the topic at hand. Please follow the forum rules when making posts for a trouble-free and productive exchange of information.

As always, you can visit the page below for a refresher on the Rules and Guidelines of the forums.

FINAL FANTASY XIV FORUM Guidelines
http://support.na.square-enix.com/rule.php?id=902&la=1

Thank you for your cooperation!

Thanks, I've tried to not use insults to push my agenda. I'll admit it is an agenda. But Everyone else has not been affording me that same courtesy.

[Sephr]

...Push my agenda. I'll admit it is an agenda

What agenda? xD

It's all speculation, do you think they'll be more likely to take your ideas onboard than someone else's if you repeat them continually? Not really how it works.

[Cairdeas]

Yeah fair enough, thread's moving pretty quick.

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...l=1#post141275

(not sure if that'll work or not! It's #396 anyway)

Just was trying to really establish what the point they were trying to get across in that text was, being as I think it might've been misunderstood. They say something like "We don't want people to think of them as advanced classes" as opposed to outright saying something like "These are seperate from classes". It's more about the perception they don't want people to get from the fact that they'll be stronger than their base class at certain things. That's what I take from it anyway.

Most of us understand what it means.

Jobs are Playstyles/Roles not Classes.

IE.

A Thief is a Subverter. They attack from behind dealing excessive damage, steal items, and strip enmity and other effects from monsters.

That Role isn't lended directly to any weapon though. Any weapon right now can perform that role if they want. But if the job system pidgeonholes you into a weapon then you no longer are designing your character about how you want to perform your role (Pick up an axe, equip subversion skills, become a subverter) Your are saying "I'm a subverter and all my other choices are set for me." Which is boring.

I'd rather we see it as more like an evolution of the Subjob system. Your subjob in FFXI helped modify your main job to perform certain roles.

A Warrior/Thief was a Subverter. They dealt massive spike damage, stripped monsters of the def/str/etc with weapon skills, etc.

So to do the same thing in FFXIV we should be able to take Marauder which is our main identifier. Attach any Job to it as our modifier to adjust that job to perform the role we want.

Marauder / Thief then becomes the same as a Warrior/Thief from FFXI. You can recreate your character easily if that is your choice.

A Gladiator / Red Mage is a hybrid melee fighter that forces elemental stats into his weapons for extended damage dealing, but can assist others with heals and minor buffs.

A Lancer / White Mage is a holy fighter that uses holy spells and his lance to deal damage and single target cure spells to assist his party when necessary. (Reflecting on a Dragoon/White Mage from XI, or Holy Dragoon from past FF Games.)

This would give players more freedom to design their characters but still fill a specific role which is all the job system was supposed to do.

Once you have the Role set the weapon is modified to reflect that. It doesn't matter if you have a wand, staff, axe, or sword equipped. A White Mage will always be a Holy Magic and Healing Magic user.

A Thief will always be a Subverter.
A Warrior will always be a pure front line damage dealer.
A Dragoon will always be someone who uses Jumps to manage hate and assist in dealing damage.

A jobs weapon doesn't matter because it can do its role with any weapon. It just needs to be able to do its role.

[Sephr]

Most of us understand what it means.

(How? Do you have more information than everyone else?)

Jobs are Playstyles/Roles not Classes.

Still trying to establish your opinion as fact, and rally the troops behind you? Part of this mighty 'agenda'? I didn't say roles weren't playstyles. What I said was, by analysing what's actually been said in the text (talking about the class that corresponds to the job role being used to unlock it, corresponding meaning, being linked to), it would appear that classes are tied to specific roles.

Don't get me wrong, your idea sounds lovely (although fails to take stats into account really, and also fails to account for the fact that we're getting job-specific gear, meaning that a Black mage is going to be getting a black mage robe. But yeah he could totally be a lancer.) but it just doesn't seem like what they were trying to put across in the text.

You also pretty much seem to be working on the assumption that you're not speculating, that your idea has enough gravity to be right, and that pretty means you can gloss over the points I raised and ignore them?