Would anybody like to see more Jobs per Class?

[CaptainLagbeard]

Well, to be perfectly honest... Not really.

As the classes are currently built entirely around them becoming a specific job at 30.

It would take a full rebuild of the class for them support a second job of a different role.

[Reynhart]

It would take a full rebuild of the class for them support a second job of a different role.

Not necessarily.
In this post, I imagined what you could do with GLA/PLD to open a potential DPS branch. I think you could do something similar to every other class so that each of them can offer two different roles. As for the balance issue with SMN and SCH, I don't think we would have the same issue now that we have more job actions than class actions.

[azura84]

It would take a full rebuild of the class for them support a second job of a different role.

I'm not picking on you Captain, but I gotta agree with Reynhart, just as with SMN and SCH you make the first 30 levels of abilities things that are universal and the core of the jobs rotations, then the jobs tailor the class to be a change to either DPS, Healer or Tank. Gladiators and Paladins would love a single sword wielding DPS job they could alternate to. Personally I wish we had more TYPES (DPS,TANK,HEALS), like they could easily create a Support type that has some dots or something but was primarily designed to enhance the party or more significantly debuff the enemy, unfortunately SE hasn't been comfortable or successful with stepping outside their wheelhouse since ARR (talking about daidem, eureka, PoTD backlash) and I highly doubt they'd be willing to risk upsetting the decent balance of roles they currently have, i mean since ARR they've dumbed a LOT of things down like personally plugging in our own stats per level increase, removing resistances all together, and the fact there is zero elemental effect is rather unprecidented in any FF game. I get unaspected damage but when you've got a huge hitter like BLM casting Fire 4 on Leviathan it really shouldn't be killing him, I dont care how upset people get about balance, that is just stupid.

[CaptainLagbeard]

I'm not picking on you Captain, but I gotta agree with Reynhart, just as with SMN and SCH you make the first 30 levels of abilities things that are universal and the core of the jobs rotations, then the jobs tailor the class to be a change to either DPS, Healer or Tank. Gladiators and Paladins would love a single sword wielding DPS job they could alternate to.

My counter arguments still remains, GLA needs to be able to tank at lower levels, so things like the current Rage of Halone combo and Flash need to stay as core parts of Gladiator. Which would then carry over to the DPS class as well. They can remove increased enmity with a trait on the DPS version. But tanks aren't exactly damage heavy, just changing their role wouldn't change their damage done, so you might have a class that doesn't really do that much damage.

And gear, you can make it share armor, but it can't share weapons. Like you have SMN and SCH weapons separately, you would need to create all new weapons for the new DPS class, because the PLD ones have stats non-tanks can't use.

So I put out the question, why try to rebuild a class that works well to try to slap a DPS role on it instead of just making a new class from the ground up that is a DPS.

The only thing they'd save time in is some basic animations, but it'd probably take even more time to rebalance the class to support a new role.

[Shurrikhan]

My counter arguments still remains, GLA needs to be able to tank at lower levels, so things like the current Rage of Halone combo and Flash need to stay as core parts of Gladiator. Which would then carry over to the DPS class as well. They can remove increased enmity with a trait on the DPS version. But tanks aren't exactly damage heavy, just changing their role wouldn't change their damage done, so you might have a class that doesn't really do that much damage.

And gear, you can make it share armor, but it can't share weapons. Like you have SMN and SCH weapons separately, you would need to create all new weapons for the new DPS class, because the PLD ones have stats non-tanks can't use.

So I put out the question, why try to rebuild a class that works well to try to slap a DPS role on it instead of just making a new class from the ground up that is a DPS.

The only thing they'd save time in is some basic animations, but it'd probably take even more time to rebalance the class to support a new role.

SB SMN and SCH have already shown that class actions and traits can be retroactively modified, trimmed, or replaced upon equipping their job stones. Rage of Halone could have a different effect or be outright replaced for a DPS branch of the GLD-based job. We also have precedent for only one of the job branches retaining the previous weapon. SMN maintains ACN weapons, but SCH requires altogether different tomes.

The question to me is simply... why attach a DPS job to a sword-and-shield class? A Ranger would clearly stem from Archer. A Geomancer would clearly stem from Conjurer. But a two-hander-wielding Templar from a Gladiator? Unlike Ranger or Sniper or whatnot, it's not about to be excluded by lack of unique base; it can work its own way up from level 1 if need be just fine.

[Reynhart]

My counter arguments still remains, GLA needs to be able to tank at lower levels, so things like the current Rage of Halone combo and Flash need to stay as core parts of Gladiator.

Going back to my hypothetical rework for GLA, you'd have your tank stance at level 10. It's more than enough enmity and mitigation to face any content up to level 30, when paired with role actions.

But tanks aren't exactly damage heavy, just changing their role wouldn't change their damage done, so you might have a class that doesn't really do that much damage.

Bumping the damage at low level to compensate for the tank stance is not that difficult. You also have the options of giving the job crystal a decent amount of STR that will make a difference at low level but won't have a real impact on higher levels, or giving traits to DPS jobs to boost their damage. For example, this Sword&Shield DPS could have Enhanced Strength I at level 10 and II at level 20.

And gear, you can make it share armor, but it can't share weapons.

You already have several weapons that jobs can use but their class cannot. Apart from that, since every job only uses one main stat for calculation, it could be fused into a "power" stat (No need to separate INT and MND, for example). And they're only new skins, not really "new weapons".

So I put out the question, why try to rebuild a class that works well to try to slap a DPS role on it instead of just making a new class from the ground up that is a DPS.
The only thing they'd save time in is some basic animations, but it'd probably take even more time to rebalance the class to support a new role.

Because it would be faster than creating and balancing new jobs from scratch when you already have lots of existing skills. And it would also open new flavor of weapons for each role (After all, people still complain that there's not a "Sword" DPS). And, like I said, if could make some people transistion to tanks and healers smoother, if they already have some kind of confidence in the base class.

[Deceptus]

My counter arguments still remains, GLA needs to be able to tank at lower levels, so things like the current Rage of Halone combo and Flash need to stay as core parts of Gladiator. Which would then carry over to the DPS class as well. They can remove increased enmity with a trait on the DPS version. But tanks aren't exactly damage heavy, just changing their role wouldn't change their damage done, so you might have a class that doesn't really do that much damage.
.

So you make a trait post 30 that lowers their enmity (on the abilities) and ups their damage.

[Jandor]

So you make a trait post 30 that lowers their enmity (on the abilities) and ups their damage.

Or give a tank stance at 15 and alter savage blade and rage of halone additional effects to "Increases enmity while in tank stance."