Extend Classes into full Jobs?

[Exstal]

The problem is they're already vested in the class => job. If Rogue becomes its own end-game class then what becomes of Ninja, which is just an extension of Rogue? Same with Summoner/Arcanist. It's only really possible with a huge rework of either the job or the class. That is enough effort to simply make new classes.

[Skeith-Adeline]

In the case of THM, we essentially lose our greatest strength: AoE. No Flare = damn well, fire 2 spam.

[Bishop81]

The problem is they're already vested in the class => job. If Rogue becomes its own end-game class then what becomes of Ninja, which is just an extension of Rogue? Same with Summoner/Arcanist. It's only really possible with a huge rework of either the job or the class. That is enough effort to simply make new classes.

Don't see why we can't have "similar" Jobs, they both branch off the same base class after all.

[Exstal]

Don't see why we can't have "similar" Jobs, they both branch off the same base class after all.

Being similar is one thing. Being carbon copies is another.

[dday3six]

Don't see why we can't have "similar" Jobs, they both branch off the same base class after all.

Because you run into issues with reduntancy. Jobs are basically specializations of a class. Having more of them creates issues with balance. If each job needs to have a basic amount of equal representation, and the content needs to be done in such a way that all jobs are relevant, having fewer of them, makes things more simple.

[Bishop81]

Being similar is one thing. Being carbon copies is another.

As I said, I don't see why you can't. Every player who plays a SMN is a carbon copy of each other any way.

Because you run into issues with reduntancy. Jobs are basically specializations of a class. Having more of them creates issues with balance. If each job needs to have a basic amount of equal representation, and the content needs to be done in such a way that all jobs are relevant, having fewer of them, makes things more simple.

And this "redundancy" is bad how?

Why would having more "similar" classes create balance issues? They are similar ...

[Exstal]

As I said, I don't see why you can't. Every player who plays a SMN is a carbon copy of each other any way.

You can't see because you're not looking hard enough. There is something that is a waste of time, that's making classes that play exactly the same as each other.

SMN and SCH play the same way when SCH is DPSing. That's why SCH's primary function is not a DPS. That's what differentiates it from SMN. What is NIN compared to THF, if it were to just be an extension of ROG? It would play exactly the same as THF but with the ninjitsu ability. Aside from "feelings", there is not a single sensible reason to double up on the same class being the same role.

This topic has been beat to death, but it's because you're new here you don't seem to know just how beaten this horse is.

Read this thread in its entirety and you might understand how much this topic has been discussed.

Thief / Ninja

[dday3six]

And this "redundancy" is bad how?

Why would having more "similar" classes create balance issues? They are similar ...

Equal representation, like I said. Imagine this: There are 2 jobs choices from Archer. Bard as it exists in it's current form, and 'Ranger'. Now why is anyone going to want a Ranger in the group since it will have the lower DPS of Bard, but without the utility of Songs.

[Bishop81]

You can't see because you're not looking hard enough. There is something that is a waste of time, that's making classes that play exactly the same as each other.

...

Let's SE determine what is and isn't a waste of their time.

The game isn't only about "functionality". A NIN isn't a ROG and a ROG isn't a NIN.

If they do extend classes into full Jobs, what makes you think they won't add Job specific abilities to "differentiate" the 2 jobs?

Also, again, so what if they are similar mechanics-wise?

If you really want to "not waste time", might as well just have "fighter", "thief", "priest" and "wizard", then call it a day.

[Bishop81]

Equal representation, like I said. Imagine this: There are 2 jobs choices from Archer. Bard as it exists in it's current form, and 'Ranger'. Now why is anyone going to want a Ranger in the group since it will have the lower DPS of Bard, but without the utility of Songs.

... and you somehow think the "Ranger" won't have their own niche?

"Equal representation"? Extending the Classes into Jobs would just be like adding new Jobs. The now-Jobs Classes, will have their own Job specific abilities.

Look, extending Classes into full Jobs will either yield,

a) a Job that plays very similarly to a current Job and has the same effectiveness.
b) a Job that plays differently to a current Job and brings it's own benefits.

Either way, I don't see how it will harm the game.