Ninja vs. Dragoon

[Allyrion]

It's also possible, imo, that MCH will be able to provide the debuff itself, whatever it is.

Edit to add: Honestly I didn't realize they used blunt in game to refer to MNK damage. That's not really the best term for them to use since blunt has two connotations--the one being how you're normally using it, a "blunt-edge" weapon that's not intended for serious harm, and the other being "bludgeoning." Most games with these three damage types use bludgeoning for the third. It's pretty odd that they chose blunt, really.

I don't really get that connotation.
Hammer, mace, cudgels are blunt weapons.
I don't think you need to call it bludgeoning to connote an intent to harm.
There's Blunt force Trauma and Injuries which connote that.


While monks use fist weapons, I think their damage type simply lies in them using their body for the damage and the weapons just compliment that.

MNK is a special case, where I don't think the damage type needs to match the weapon as much as the nature of the job itself.
Any type of kicks can obviously be counted as Blunt too. So the damage type accounts for the weapon not being at the core of their type of attacking.

[Alahra]

I don't really get that connotation.
Hammer, mace, cudgels are blunt weapons.
I don't think you need to call it bludgeoning to connote an intent to harm.
There's Blunt force Trauma and Injuries which connote that.

Sure, but it has another meaning as well (and it's the primary one):

1. (of a knife, pencil, etc.) having a worn-down edge or point; not sharp.
"a blunt knife"

Bludgeoning is more clear as a result (and it's why most PnP games use that instead). I looked back and FFXI also used Blunt, so naturally they would carry it forward since most of the team has been the same between the two games.

As for Machinist specifically, if they did mention piercing in one of the interviews, that probably seals it. Either type would have made sense, depending on the descriptive elements (a cannonball works on the same principle as a black powder musket bullet, and I don't think anyone would call a cannonball a piercing weapon). It was really a matter of how much synergy they wanted Machinist to have with DRG. If the damage is indeed piercing (and it probably is), it's reasonable to assume they do intend for BRD and Machinist to not really be used together (though I would still imagine one BRD and one Machinist will be more effective than two Bards currently is).

[Zophar]

Either type would have made sense

Except that piercing, again, makes considerably much, much, much more sense, for so very many, reasons, which I don't feel like repeating.

(a cannonball works on the same principle as a black powder musket bullet, and I don't think anyone would call a cannonball a piercing weapon).

While technically, you're not completely wrong, no person would ever consider a musket ball a blunt weapon. A round ball, though it may be, it's ultimate effect is to pierce it's target. You get shot by a musket bullet, or get shot by a modern day bullet, and the results are the same. It's piercing. If you were talking about rubber bullets, or beanbag rounds, or potatoes, THOSE would qualify as blunt rounds, as their entire purpose is to hit and disable an opponent with non lethal, blunt force.

[Alahra]

While technically, you're not completely wrong, no person would ever consider a musket ball a blunt weapon.

As I've mentioned, it's not a completely crazy idea. People *have* considered them blunt weapons; there are pen and paper RPGs that have classified musket rounds as blunt weapons (Pathfinder is the most recent that I'm aware of--they are dual-typed there as both bludgeoning and piercing). The best way I can think to explain it is this: if you take an arrow without the bow and want to hurt someone with it, you still pierce skin with it. If you do the same with a black powder bullet, the best thing you can do is put it in a sling or something (like you would a rock or sling bullet) and launch it that way. But it's not going to pierce skin in the same way at that point. It's going to bludgeon it. That's why you see them as a split damage type in games like Pathfinder and why it's at least conceivable that they might have been blunt in here to promote a certain sort of class synergy.

And, you seem to be confusing "blunt" with non-lethal, which isn't always the case. Monk attacks, though classified as blunt, are certainly not non-lethal (nor are the attacks of like a warhammer, which we don't really have an analog for in FFXIV presently).

And, just to clarify again: I don't think it *should* be blunt. I don't really care either way. I just think it's conceivable they could have gone either way with it, since gameplay/balance concerns will occasionally trump concerns of lore/flavor/realism.