Is FFXIV hinting Berserker, Necromancer, and Chemist next expansion?

[GucciSan]

Uh, SquareEnix has already included Necromancer as a playable class in the series in the FFV remakes.

That is true but it was only in the rerelease and not the original version so it's debatable whether it even counts as part of the games "true/original" vision. It's basically bonus content with the way it was added.

And while a different form of Necro that just focused on Darkness spells would be interesting, they've already established how Necromancy works in XIV. We've seen it multiple times on the Source and again from pretty much a parallel universe/alternate dimension. It's been pretty consistent with the element of "raising the dead". If this new form of Necro just focused on Darkness spells and not raising the dead it might be better off being something else entirely, like a VoidMage that channels energy from the 13th.

for the next expansion is more possible to have healer + melee dps, why? because the game count all ranged in the same category, then right now we have 4 melee and 6 ranged....

They actually consider them seperate; they said when they gave us DNC it was because we only had 2 Ranged Phyical Jobs at the time. Going based on how they've added Jobs so far, they're more likely to add another Caster/Ranged Magical since DNC is too recent.

[reivaxe]

for the next expansion is more possible to have healer + melee dps, why? because the game count all ranged in the same category,

No, it doesn't.

Casters and Ranger Physicals are their own things to the devs. Meaning we have 3 Ranged and 3 Casters and 1 limited Caster.

[Iscah]

I find it interesting that in order to make Necro work as a hero class in FF14, people are willing to near completely remove anything that makes it an actual Necro.

This is prettymuch the feeling I'm getting here - doubly so in the context of the boss supposedly hinting at it.

"The boss is a necromancer! It's going to be our next job!"

"But a job like that could never work because of [reasons]. And necromancy is taboo."

"Okay, so they just need to invent a completely different set of skills to what the boss uses. And call it something else. The boss must be a hint at whatever that non-zombie-summoning non-necromancer is going to be."

[Shougun]

No, it doesn't.

Casters and Ranger Physicals are their own things to the devs. Meaning we have 3 Ranged and 3 Casters and 1 limited Caster.

Curious if they'll actually count it as a caster (blu) or if it is limited to them too lol.



If they do.. then we can also begin to content with the chance 5.5 like 4.5 will have a limited job, which would of course fill a slot. Maybe a whip for semi ranged or some new kind of concept, that could put Beastmaster for example in the physical ranged (since those jobs tend to be low dps/support, fitting Beastmaster into that to allow for a more pure dps elsewhere might 'work out').

I still think that they don't have to, nor should have to, follow the balance of that chart though. If anything I think the limited jobs should be a new group of their own (including in game tab), and I would hope to see some job some time in this game's life break the standard gear mold (quirky things are fun haha). Like I'd love to see a battle mage that uses dragoon armor, healer that has bard or black mage gear (might fit a chemist or like a dark healer, since we've been talking necromancers).

I want to say it's going to be chemist healer and geomancer caster damage, if they are feeling feisty it might be geomancer as a sort of bruiser mage in melee dps (as I'm just taking queues off of Gaia and her big honking hammer, even though they said "don't" lol). With Beastmaster as the limited job, unless they decide to 180 the whole limited concept but I doubt that.

My wild card surprise guess might be that instead of limited job they decided to make blue mage a normal (and limited) job due to player salt mines, I'd put that on the pretty wild side though. Anything beyond that and I'm going into the "I think that's very unlikely or out of no where" section, like I'd love to see a transformation based job but unless you count FFXVI or the first mini-main antagonist of ShB there is zero hints of that concept anywhere (which isn't a requirement in order to be made of course lo). Anyway that's my weak guess... Might be able to determine more after a trailer or something.

This is prettymuch the feeling I'm getting here - doubly so in the context of the boss supposedly hinting at it.

"The boss is a necromancer! It's going to be our next job!"

"But a job like that could never work because of [reasons]. And necromancy is taboo."

"Okay, so they just need to invent a completely different set of skills to what the boss uses. And call it something else. The boss must be a hint at whatever that non-zombie-summoning non-necromancer is going to be."

Who said this exactly? I've not seen that anywhere (at least in this thread and in a state that you presented it).

OP said might be because of the boss but not for sure (red herring). As for the rest of it you seem to be making a strawman. Maybe you were just compiling everything from everyone, across other threads too, and turning it into a caricature of an argument, maybe for insult / "I don't take you seriously", but if it was meant to be serious and representative showcase- it looked like a sloppy argument to me. You don't need to summon zombies to be a necromancer (though I mention you could likely get away with shades, wraiths, and other spirits, and things relating to monsters and not humans, or as another pointed out willing soul magic- this could include good and bad energy like friends or angry energy, which also clearly falls in line with necromancer), and you don't need to be 1:1 of the boss to be either- like our job guides, or npcs influenced off specific jobs, often have new made up skills. "Well if it doesn't look like X boss then it isn't the necromancer!" is just a sad argument, and again perhaps you were just going for caricature but if it was meant to be serious.. Seemed like you only saw what you wanted to see and not what was there (like I've seen when lore no has been applied before, summoner, beast tribes, beast races, etc- people who are very knowledgeable of the lore but also refuse to become creative with it and can only see what is not what could be). I've not seen anyone say it has to be like the boss (someone mention it could be, but whatever, we almost never line up with bosses whether they are our job or not).

As for "reasons" I've already shown how often the lore no's are incredibly flimsily if desire to produce is there, on many occasions the lore no has been used and failed. Number of times seen "can't have demi" "can't have this" "can't have a beast tribe that's not specifically beast" and they happen anyways. Naturally here with full blown zombie raising of humans I imagine it more true (given I doubt Yoshida would want to bother with that, so it may be used as an offhanded way to dismiss the desire and the true reason is still lack of desire and not lore), but simply keeping necromancer (communing with the dead / lifestream, soul magic, curses or whatever) but not raising humans as undead slaves already kills many of the moral issues- after you add a few more new lines of lore in to adjust course (can damage self as part of a job but damaging the planet is an issue, these things CAN be added though). Just like how sure people were that lore made demi impossible, until they added lore that made it not. True until is not true. Which means it's not impossible, perhaps impractical or undesirable, but can't work is wrong (specially as we're not a strict magic system that is attempting to be that realistic, perhaps we'd have to be far more careful in bending then- but we're not).

Certainly using a different name /would/ make adding the job easier, as you'd not have to write with any of the preexisting content in mind (so naturally it would be easier). Like instead of calling it the thieves guild you call it the rogue guild because you want the city's actions to make sense (and it's not a job, it's a class), but as Yoshida said Rogue is Thief (though I'm still waiting for the source that says he said Thieves are immoral therefore WoL couldn't be one, which I'd find hilarious if true given the context of some of our other jobs). But even then you could always have it called necromancer on the 13th and Soul Hoover Vacuum on the source. As well to mention using the shards can easily come up with different concepts of necromancer, on our source it's mostly work with dead bodies rising- on another it might not be. Clearly from wherever the boss came from it included blowing them up. Like some games necromancers never summon humans but other sorts of creatures instead, could blow those up lol.

An aside I like to add occasionally is that I'm not even trying to get necromancer added, I just find people being 100% confident in a way they've been wrong in serious ways before in order to shutdown or even for some as a way to make fun of the the desires of others (didn't see that here, but have seen it else where).. well I just find that disgruntling. Necromancer is one of the more likely to be no due to lore, and moral (/china) issues if you summon humans, but yet still if someone wants to raise that flag of desire- so while at best it might be "very very unlikely" you can also work on paths and concepts to make it more 'plausive' if still unlikely (like removing the human zombie, adding willing souls, using monsters as part of the equation, etc). If the entire game population wanted Necromancer then you can bet your bottom dollar we'd be getting it (of course the entire game population isn't dying for that job, so I'd not bet a bottom dollar lol).

[GucciSan]

snip

Nobody said this exactly, but that's pretty much how it goes whenever the topic of Necromancer comes up. Nobody's wrong for trying to figure out a way for it to exist, it's that what they're essentially doing is creating another Job entirely after it's pointed out how it won't work and then try to justify it as Necromancer. Even if the textbook definition also includes communication with spirits popular culture pidgeonholed it into the "raise the dead" archetype which we've seen in XIV multiple times from across different worlds now so that's how we should expect it to work.

The 'no's' as to why aren't flmisy at all: no enemy we've ever encountered have ever been villified based on what Job they were; they were villans based on their character. We've fought multiple Necromancers because they did this one specific thing.

[Shougun]

Nobody said this exactly, but that's pretty much how it goes whenever the topic of Necromancer comes up. Nobody's wrong for trying to figure out a way for it to exist, it's that what they're essentially doing is creating another Job entirely after it's pointed out how it won't work and then try justify it as Necromancer. Even if the textbook definition also includes communication with spirits popular culture pidgeonholed it into the "raise the dead" archetype which we've seen in XIV multiple times across from across different worlds now so that's how we should expect it to work.

The 'no's' as to why aren't flmisy at all: no enemy we've ever encountered have ever been villified based on what Job they were; they were villans based on their character. We've fought multiple Necromancers because they did this one specific thing.

Raising dead humans for undead slavery yeah sure, don't do that- still solidly necromancer even by pop culture standards when you remove that. Besides if someone says they want necromancer but they don't want or need the pigeon hole that also blows past the issue then (name still a problem but creative story could solve).

No's are flimsy because they make zero creative attempts. Just like no on demi was, and honestly on 3 egi as well- it's just wet paper waiting for the time when desire needs to punch a hole through it. Well usually, some people do offer suggestions at the same time as saying unlikely.

[Lersayil]

Raising dead humans for undead slavery yeah sure, don't do that- still solidly necromancer even by pop culture standards when you remove that. Besides if someone says they want necromancer but they don't want or need the pigeon hole that also blows past the issue then (name still a problem but creative story could solve).

No's are flimsy because they make zero creative attempts. Just like no on demi was, and honestly on 3 egi as well- it's just wet paper waiting for the time when desire needs to punch a hole through it. Well usually, some people do offer suggestions at the same time as saying unlikely.

You say that, but the term necromancer is suprisingly unknown to anyone that isn't at least midly versed in the fantasy genre, so even if we say popular pop culture, its still rather niche.

Anyways, sure the necromancer theme can be wide and could encompass a number of power domains, but the "popular" definition is very strict: reanimation of corpses and life drain / negative energy effects. Both of these effects are present and explained phenomenon in the lore and considered taboo (both the end effect and the method). The workarounds so far proposed either hurt the lore, or twist the necromancer theme to something you wouldn't call a necromancer at first glance.

It isn't really an issue of creativity, but the relatively cemented image of the necromancer and conflict with already existing lore.

[BlitzAceRush]

What Lersayil said really is the crux of the problem for Necormancer in 14 for me, yes you could do it and yes you could make it work, but 14 has established what a Necromancer in lore is, and if you deviate from that you'll just end up with a Gunbreaker situation, do they use Gunblades? Yes, is it what any of the people who have asked us to use Garlean gunblades since 2.0 likely expected? No, Gunbreaker gave us playable Gunblades at the cost of being nothing like any Gunblade whielder we'd seen in 14 before their addition.
That's the rub, you could add in a Necromancer that dose nothing that 14's lore says is off limits and by using outside game lore still get away with calling it a Necromancer, but in lore it would just have the name.
In fact if you did that most NPC's would likely wonder why someone who dose nothing that Necromancers do would willingly call themselves that and gain all the stigmas that follow.

[Iscah]

Who said this exactly? I've not seen that anywhere (at least in this thread and in a state that you presented it).

OP said might be because of the boss but not for sure (red herring). As for the rest of it you seem to be making a strawman. Maybe you were just compiling everything from everyone, across other threads too, and turning it into a caricature of an argument, maybe for insult / "I don't take you seriously", but if it was meant to be serious and representative showcase- it looked like a sloppy argument to me.

Yes, it's a "compilation" and yes I am summing it up as something of a caricature because the compiled point seems illogical to me.

My point is unrelated to whether an "altered necromancer without zombies" would be a viable class.

My actual point is that in setting out to argue that the zombie-summoning necromancer boss could be a hint at a playable necromancer class, then being told that it couldn't work as-is, people are coming up with workarounds that involve removing everything about the idea that resembles what the boss is and does, while maintaining that the boss must be a hint that this altered class is coming.

By keeping fixed on the two ideas "necromancer could work somehow" and "there is a necromancer boss in the game that must be a hint at the class" and trying to equate the two ideas as they shift further apart, that starts looking illogical.

Or to look at it another way, let's say the game designers did set out to implement necromancer and had to make these alterations - giving it a different name and inventing a skill set that doesn't involve any zombies or "dark powers", ending up with something quite different. Let's call it Spiritmancer.

If the developers then wanted to hint at the existence of Spiritmancer, we would be fighting a Spectral Spiritmancer in the Heroes' Gauntlet who gives a glimpse of that job's skill set, rather than a necromancer who summons zombies.

[MomomiMomi]

By keeping fixed on the two ideas "necromancer could work somehow" and "there is a necromancer boss in the game that must be a hint at the class" and trying to equate the two ideas as they shift further apart, that starts looking illogical.

The problem is that you are conflating two things that aren't necessarily being said by the same people. Some people are saying the boss could be a hint towards the job, to which people are saying the job couldn't work. In reply to that, some people are saying the job could work, but might need some adjustments. These are not necessarily the same people who are saying the boss could be a hint.