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

[Iscah]

I think people point to her as a hint because she's highlighted as unique in the dungeon. Of the bosses she's the only one who still seems to hold onto her sense of awareness for the most part as she's also having a mental break down. She tries to reach out to us and talk to us as she's also trying to kill us.

I never took her "reaching out" statements as aimed at us. She begins by declaring she'll fight "for the world... and for you, my heart!" - and we have no reason at all to be referred to as her heart so she must be metaphorically or deludedly talking to someone else. And I took that unseen someone-else to be the person she is trying to reach out to and unable to find. Everything else she says is delighting in killing us, so I find it hard to interpret those lines as "trying to reach us".

I'm here not really to say Necromancer needs to be a job but to be like "hey you necromancer fan, you can ignore those people who say it's impossible- please continue to dream, it may have to be altered but you're allowed to dream and you might find a viable path".

This is kind of my point. The topic in the thread is about whether the Necromancer boss is a hint of a new job. If it needs to be altered to "achieve the dream" of it as a class, then the boss is not an indication of the job.

The thief is still not that far from our rogue/ninja, with a gimmick that is basically shifting around with Shukuchi. The berserker is not far from our marauder/warrior besides using a sword instead of an axe. By logical comparison, any hypothetical necromancer would be not that different to the boss, so I don't think you can simultaneously argue "the boss is a hint at the class" and "the class doesn't have to be anything like the boss".

It's true there are major lore hurdles that need to be addressed, just like with Summoner, but just like with summoner for some reason the people most skilled in the history of lore were also the least creative in generating potential futures- somehow in all the major lore no's I've seen those who focus and show mastery of the history are the ones that tend to flat out say no without any creative attempt while someone like me (who enjoys the lore but hasn't made it a thing I need to study) comes up with nearly exactly what SE ends up doing as a solution (which isn't to say I had influence, just that with only an 'acceptable' understanding I had came up with what SE felt was suitable).

I wish to see lore used less as a bludgeon and see those who master the lore be more of a creative force than a police force- if I can make reasons why Summoner can break their limits, why beast races can exist, why a beast tribe doesn't need to be a beast to be a beast tribe, why certain jobs may evolve out of a theme to make room for others, then I would hope lore masters could do that with better style- yet that almost never happens. Of course this isn't a lore exclusive issue, people love saying no in general and I tend to address that as well as I love supporting the dreamers over those who want to lock things down but it is consistent enough I coined it the 'lore no' (sort of a hyper-conservative approach to lore that prevents things from changing unless SE does it themselves).

The thing with the "lore nos" you love to hate is that speculation works best with limits. Yes, the writers could pull anything out of left field and we wouldn't see it coming if we were expecting them to behave a particular way based on past decisions. But I think it's better to say "no" now and then be surprised later than spend our speculation going "yes! anything is possible and you should hope for XYZ because they can work it in there somehow if they just put the effort in." Because, based on their past decisions, they might not want to put it in.

If anything is possible then the whole thing is too wide open to speculate accurately.

And I would rather they stay consistent than "find a way" to add something that contradicts past worldbuilding just for the sake of coolness. (Not that they don't already do that sometimes, but the more they do it the messier things get and the less coherent the plot becomes.)


Edit to add: For me, I think those "lore nos" are exactly the process of speculation. Throw out a wild idea - does it fit with what we know? Can we poke holes in the logic? If it survives that testing then it's an idea worth considering; if not then it might not be "impossible" but it's not likely enough. That might change later if additional information makes us re-evaluate it, but for now it doesn't seem to add up.

[Tonkra]

I'd love beastmaster or puppetmaster.

But unfortunately Yoshi P. hates pet classes ("pet classes are always overpowered")

Most likely to see them as "amazing" limited jobs only... machinist isnt really a pet class nor makes it fun.. only real pet class which we have right now is summoner.

[Ultimatecalibur]

I never took her "reaching out" statements as aimed at us. She begins by declaring she'll fight "for the world... and for you, my heart!" - and we have no reason at all to be referred to as her heart so she must be metaphorically or deludedly talking to someone else. And I took that unseen someone-else to be the person she is trying to reach out to and unable to find. Everything else she says is delighting in killing us, so I find it hard to interpret those lines as "trying to reach us".

After reviewing her lines, they seem to be oblique references to Edda. So we may have been fighting "Locke" not!Jacke (the Rogue trainer), "Lenna" not!Edda and not!Curious Gorge the alternative shard versions of our "allies."

[Arngrim_Greyashe]

I really really really want that Berserker to be a real thing. He looked awesome. Or they could just give that armor out too. Either or. But I'd love a Berserker.

[Shougun]

This is kind of my point. The topic in the thread is about whether the Necromancer boss is a hint of a new job. If it needs to be altered to "achieve the dream" of it as a class, then the boss is not an indication of the job.

The thief is still not that far from our rogue/ninja, with a gimmick that is basically shifting around with Shukuchi. The berserker is not far from our marauder/warrior besides using a sword instead of an axe. By logical comparison, any hypothetical necromancer would be not that different to the boss, so I don't think you can simultaneously argue "the boss is a hint at the class" and "the class doesn't have to be anything like the boss".

That's your point yes, but it's not mine and it's not others but you're forcing your point into others where it doesn't belong. And I don't mean that like "your opinion isn't valid" but like someone says "maybe it's hinting at necromancer" and you go "no way will it look like that job, it's raising the human dead- do you seriously think we'll have that?" and then someone goes "I said hinting, not that we're going to get that as 100% representation, besides the other bosses seem to have counterparts too that aren't 1:1" and then you ignore everything there after.

But lets reverse it, let's imagine we didn't have warrior in one world and we did in another. In this world you point out berserker and say it's not far off from warrior. So it's drawing a parallel, and assumably likely therefore that we're not also going to get a job that it already draws a parallel to. BUT berserker and warrior ARE different they do not have the exact same spells, moves, and weapons, there is clearly a parallel but it's not like 1:1 perfect. Now if someone says Necro is hinted at, they might very well be saying like rogue is thief, like necromancer is whatever, it wont be exactly like the boss but it could be a hint yeah??? When the actual jobs only sort of match our own player jobs, then it would logically follow that a dungeon that alludes to our current jobs but is from boss format would have an even looser but potentially hint like nature to necromancer. Berserker - > warrior, but these are bosses and therefore the skill and name relationships are event more by vague theme than any sort of strict naming and gameplay convention. We can tell an npc is a samurai, like, job but often it does their own special things off that. When you're dealing with a weird mirror (berserker, or the other jobs) then this means it's even more potential for wiggle.

Just because the boss does X doesn't require the job to do X, especially if we use the other jobs which seem to have direct comparisons from that dungeon. Especially when other vague jobs NPCs have do that too. I've not see anyone demand a 1:1 from the boss, only some people suggested it might be a hint, like our good guy soul person might also be a hint (when they use their magic they go all evil looking too to be honest).

Ultimately I don't care about the boss though, personally, I find it far more likely the good guy soul magic would be a influence and then the necromancer is the "weird" variant, the good guy being the main influence and the bad 'guy' being the awkward mirror of it (just as you might say Thief is an awkward, 'other shard', mirror of Ninja and Berserker a mirror of Warrior). Regardless of my personal feeling though people are, at least from what I've seen, not suggesting a 1:1 port they are thinking "it was a hint, it was foreshadowing, it was a murmur on the wind" and you're like "well if it doesn't look exactly like the boss then it doesn't count as being a hint in any sort of way, but meanwhile I'll draw allusions to the other jobs in that dungeon to our own content even though those are not 1:1 ports either".

Especially sad when people shutdown those getting hopeful or wanting something but not getting an environment that would listen to them. I've seen like once where a person, not in this thread, wanted to raise dead humans as slaves for war- as soon as you move off that the concept becomes immediately less challenging to introduce.

"If it's not the name exactly it's not what you wanted", how about you let them tell you if they agree with that rather than speaking for them? I've seen quite a few people here, and in those other threads, wanting more the general concept, even if it doesn't include dead human enslavement, and the name while cool not being a required part of that concept.

The thing with the "lore nos" you love to hate is that speculation works best with limits. Yes, the writers could pull anything out of left field and we wouldn't see it coming if we were expecting them to behave a particular way based on past decisions. But I think it's better to say "no" now and then be surprised later than spend our speculation going "yes! anything is possible and you should hope for XYZ because they can work it in there somehow if they just put the effort in." Because, based on their past decisions, they might not want to put it in.

If anything is possible then the whole thing is too wide open to speculate accurately.

And I would rather they stay consistent than "find a way" to add something that contradicts past worldbuilding just for the sake of coolness. (Not that they don't already do that sometimes, but the more they do it the messier things get and the less coherent the plot becomes.)

I do love to hate them, but that's because they're not wild. Like lets take a look at a few:

- Summoner can't have anything better than egi. At the time of this I wrote how summoner could get around these limitations by utilizing the aether of monsters, a build up mechanic that only allowed them to temporarily hold state, and or also the left over excess energy provided by bahamut. Which is basically literally how they solved the problem. The solution wasn't out of left field. Only people's lack of vision to realize a solution.

- Beast tribes can't have non-beasts. Described how that the word is like third world country sort of description that describes a sort of view onto others than actual status of not being 'man' enough. Almost literally what happened. Solution wasn't out of left field, only the lore no's lack of vision.

- Beast races are impossible. Described over time, especially given the relations and logical progression of our story, that there may come a time where we could accept it and while it might cause a few ripples if you think of stuff as a past event that we also already have a time bubble issue that we can rely on (perhaps overly) to get over some of that. Beast races obviously were not impossible, only the lack of vision of those giving a lore no.

- A job is a representation of another job so even though the theme and gameplay wasn't fully explored it will be impossible for us to get that other job. Described how White Mage will likely lose it's elemental powers and we will see a space clearly and widely open up if they wanted to add that job. Also mentioned a similar think could happen to Astrologian. Pretty much exactly what happened.

- A boss that players wanted to see more of deemed impossible. I don't think I need to write anything here, it's been done so much it's silly to see players pretend like SE can't do whatever they want with even dead characters lol. Now you don't have to like that but to use lore as a ban for this sort of thing, yeh.. no. lol.

- A group has to be evil. SE off humanizing the enemy on increasing number of occasions while never afraid to demonize our own.

- Certain political structures are only for the evil. Short reads into history proving our own side uses them too.


(just a few off the top of the head ones)

Lore no's come down to a lack of care for the other's perspective which turns into a small vision, creativity, and little patience- shutting down the dreams of others over what amounts to at most an appeal to an authority that doesn't even always agree with them. This not left field work, this is just lack of creativity.

I present a math problem to you and you say too hard therefore impossible and you shouldn't want it. I look at the math problem and see two variables need adjusted and it works, then SE adjusts three variables and works wonderful and the people who gave lore no's pretend like it was fine all along.

Edit to add: For me, I think those "lore nos" are exactly the process of speculation. Throw out a wild idea - does it fit with what we know? Can we poke holes in the logic? If it survives that testing then it's an idea worth considering; if not then it might not be "impossible" but it's not likely enough. That might change later if additional information makes us re-evaluate it, but for now it doesn't seem to add up.

This exemplifies the issue with the lore no.

OF COURSE when someone asks for a new job that there will be new lore, that's like... hilarious to suggest otherwise and of course you know this. So if there is an issue OF COURSE then the new lore can address that. So ANY time you talk about this stuff you shouldn't refuse the existence of new concepts, they're required for anything. Especially if you are going to willfully lack a vision to be creative because you don't care to initiate a vision of any sort, 'problem too hard for me to solve therefore it's impossible for everyone'.

Sometimes, and it isn't just with the lore, it just seems like a bunch of people going around clubbing someone with some random thing they can come up with so others "don't touch their game" but then when SE gets around to making a change they act like they didn't recently club a seal about how what SE just did was "impossible" but "oh it's totally not now because they added lore to make it work". Yeah.. of course they added lore, that's how evolution works, you're not going to be able to add any job if you don't 'add lore'.

Lore no isn't saying something is unlikely, as many here have done, lore no is refusing to listen and adapt to the feedback of the desiree, refusing to believe the game can evolve and grow until the game does change (even though the desires are obviously including evolution, you're NOT getting a new job without new lore- even if it's something benign like chemist), believing you've all the answers when you've proven not to, and telling people to stop dreaming.

I'm happy the lore community has a family unit but sometimes, and particularly when it comes to gameplay, it seems like there is a sub-section of that community that enjoys going around and using their specific view point of game knowledge as a means to dictate the future of the game, and dictate it in a way that is matter of factly so rather than probability based.

So on your point that I love to hate it, indeed- it looks to me as a bunch of people get together bully someone out of their idea with clubs that are not facts, but pretend they are, and then when SE goes around and produces what that person wanted then pretend like it was fine all along. I've a list of about 15 items and there are a few people who've said impossible (no room for doubt) to all 15, and of those few they all seem to come from the same group which is why I begun to coin a name to it as it became an obvious pattern to use the story, and of a particular group of people, to prevent concepts that are not actually prevented. Seems like a pretty poor behavior, and one I intend to continue to call out, dilute, and stick sticks in the spokes of when I see it. Shutting people down, speaking for and over them even when they state otherwise, refusing to accept that their position is not so shallow or that it cannot evolve to information. Just "no" and then later "oh I guess that could happen, hah, oh well now let me go back into the forums and tell another person something can't happen due to my hyper-restrictive view where I don't try to accommodate to adapt".

If I had to choose between people who halt the idea of others as a fact based on things that are actually only educated guesses (lore says 3 egi currently, that to say it is impossible in the future is just a guess, because they could very well easily add new non-lore breaking lore to make it happen- they have done this sort of thing 'many' times for concepts including jobs), or choose to enjoy reading others dream about ideas and try to solve story issues at the same time (while some might be cautioning the challenges involved)- I'm always going to choose the later. Especially as in terms of valuable feedback the later is far more valuable. SE may learn that players want X Y Z, if people are encouraged to work through their problems and yet still dream. SE might say they'll only be able to give 50% X and 98% Y Z, but that may easily be more than enough of what they wanted (what lost may or may not be important, many I've seen don't find raising dead /humans/ as the important part of being a necro, they'd be just as happy raising wraith beasts and or whatever)- yet there are a number of people more interested in stopping the whole conversation at X before hearing more. Obviously we're going to fundamentally disagree that being conservative when guessing the future is not more valuable, or conversation useful, than being critical thinking creative and desire transparent, but so long as people try to shut things down prematurely, particularly without effort in attempting to solve/entertain the idea, I'll continue to occasionally post 'not so fast' posts in return. More endearing to try and fail, and process which takes discussion and push and pull, than it is to not try and say it's already failed and can't be done (or feigning attempt to contribute by restricting things down to an extremely narrow bandwidth "if it's not exactly like this then it can't count, therefore the idea is failed- hah!").

I still believe SE listens to their players, including their forum, and so it is critically important for people to be able to evolve their desires for SE to listen clearly (can't understand people if they're only allowed to give out shallow ideas before being told something is impossible).

[TThibi]

Seeing as the 4 jobs hinted in the new dungeon were Thief, Necromancer, Inkmage and Berserker which all use the same weapons as Rogue, Cleric, Arcanist, and Marauder. These 4 new jobs are advanced forms of the classses rather than 4 new standalone jobs. Possibly at the end of the class quest lines a conversion of the existing classes to a Limited format specifically for new limited content like pvp battlegrounds. The divergencies already exist in game with V'kebbe the stray's split at the end of the rogue classes quest line, Clerics are forbidden to use the raise spell specifically because of necromancy, Arcanist if left alone would become a combination of scholar and summoner, and without the training of a warrior the marauder would simply go berserk. Of the 5 new introduced hints Chemist alone is a new standalone job. One of the scripted lines of the Necromancer is that we would never see her story, and that would be true if the final stage of Cleric was to be transformed into a fully leveled Necromancer.
It makes sense for SE to use in game content to show off upcoming expansion content as the fan festivals which would showcase the coming expansion have been cancelled and 6.0 would be expected next June. The showcased class evolutions are not party friendly with abilities that are large in scale, and generally overpowered
necromancer is able to summon a full party of undead, for instance. Although not party friendly they fit the template established by Bluemage nicely.

[Arngrim_Greyashe]

Seeing as the 4 jobs hinted in the new dungeon were Thief, Necromancer, Inkmage and Berserker which all use the same weapons as Rogue, Cleric, Arcanist, and Marauder. These 4 new jobs are advanced forms of the classses rather than 4 new standalone jobs. Possibly at the end of the class quest lines a conversion of the existing classes to a Limited format specifically for new limited content like pvp battlegrounds. The divergencies already exist in game with V'kebbe the stray's split at the end of the rogue classes quest line, Clerics are forbidden to use the raise spell specifically because of necromancy, Arcanist if left alone would become a combination of scholar and summoner, and without the training of a warrior the marauder would simply go berserk. Of the 5 new introduced hints Chemist alone is a new standalone job. One of the scripted lines of the Necromancer is that we would never see her story, and that would be true if the final stage of Cleric was to be transformed into a fully leveled Necromancer.
It makes sense for SE to use in game content to show off upcoming expansion content as the fan festivals which would showcase the coming expansion have been cancelled and 6.0 would be expected next June. The showcased class evolutions are not party friendly with abilities that are large in scale, and generally overpowered
necromancer is able to summon a full party of undead, for instance. Although not party friendly they fit the template established by Bluemage nicely.

Berserker doesn't use the same weapon as Marauder. Maurader uses an axe and Berserker uses a sword.

[GucciSan]

snip

There's really no point into foreshadowing something if the hint you're giving is not close to what you're going to give people. That's giving people false expectations which is something you absolutely want to avoid.

Using an example similar to yours, say we didn't have Samurai and for years we've fought Samurai and seen Samurai that play like the one we have in game now. Then a couple of expansions later they do actually release Samurai as a playable Job and it's a bulking tank with a nodachi with aesthetics of a shogun or the Kensei from For Honor instead of a wandering ronin.



Players would riot far worse than the DRK scenario because there were no DRKs before then and they never established how the Job works in XIV. That's like dangling the keys to a car in front of someone then when you finally hand them keys they're ones to a completely different car but it's still the same brand. Hints mean nothing if the hint in itself is almost a lie or is too vague to make a reasonable guess on.


Yoshida even gives vague non-answers during interviews to avoid false expectations from players, so there's no reason to think they'd foreshadow a Job with a different one that plays nothing like or is nothing like the Job that players are going to eventually get.

- Summoner can't have anything better than egi...

And none of these are good examples of lore. Lore involves the cultures and history of the elements of the world. Saying we can't have more than 3 egis because of the limits of aether impriting is lore. Saying that SMN can't have anything better than egis is more of an opinion; you can get around it it just can't be whatever an egi is. Expecting beast tribes from beast men is a player expectation because every expansion until now has had exclusively beast men beast tribes; I don't recall anywhere in the game do NPCs discuss that Beast Tribes have to be beast men. And just because Jobs lose elements it doesn't change the lore of what that Job is; WHM still has their elemental spells leveling up and still draws upon the elements to heal. AST still has Time Mage because their Benefic spells still alter fate/time and their LB3 shifts timelines for the party, even if their obvious time-related skills got removed.

Whether you like it or not lore is important for speculating anything for future Jobs. It's a fundamentally important part of the scientific process to use viewed prexisting evidence when forming a hypothesis otherwise you could speculate about literally anything happening during an experiment. No one's trying to bully anyone out of Job ideas that they have but we have exhausting evidence why this one in particular will not work at all and people are willing to throw them away or ignore them.

[Shougun]

There's really no point into foreshadowing something if the hint you're giving is not close to what you're going to give people. That's giving people false expectations which is something you absolutely want to avoid.

Not really. We have beserker to line to warrior, and Thief for Ninja/Rogue. Neither of the bosses shown were 1:1 of our real jobs. If the dungeon carried on with this motif, as we can argue it did, then therefore if Necro was a teaser it wouldn't be a 1:1 either. (Nor called necromancer in that situation lol).

You might say it's not a good teaser because it's teasing a concept while also admitting it'll be different lol, but it could easily fall in line with thief / beserker concept.

Although again of personal note I don't really care what the bosses did, I would assume a bigger hint would be what is happening with soul magic all through the entire expansion. Like through the whooollleee expansion lol. That we even have someone going out of their way to learn it now, such stuff like that.

And none of these are good examples of lore. Lore involves the cultures and history of the elements of the world. Saying we can't have more than 3 egis because of the limits of aether impriting is lore. Saying that SMN can't have anything better than egis is more of an opinion; you can get around it it just can't be whatever an egi is. Expecting beast tribes from beast men is a player expectation because every expansion until now has had exclusively beast men beast tribes; I don't recall anywhere in the game do NPCs discuss that Beast Tribes have to be beast men. And just because Jobs lose elements it doesn't change the lore of what that Job is; WHM still has their elemental spells leveling up and still draws upon the elements to heal. AST still has Time Mage because their Benefic spells still alter fate/time and their LB3 shifts timelines for the party, even if their obvious time-related skills got removed.

Whether you like it or not lore is important for speculating anything for future Jobs. It's a fundamentally important part of the scientific process to use viewed prexisting evidence when forming a hypothesis otherwise you could speculate about literally anything happening during an experiment. No one's trying to bully anyone out of Job ideas that they have but we have exhausting evidence why this one in particular will not work at all and people are willing to throw them away or ignore them.

Honestly not sure we disagree here, as much as one might think, and I think you misunderstood me. Those examples are examples where people used the lore to bludgeon their point that something is IMPOSSIBLE, and not worth discussing. I'm not saying their perfect examples of using the lore properly. I'm saying their proof of concept of people using something to say no (and being wrong- also disagree on the importance of your two job notes, irrelevant that white has some elements, relevance is that a new job can now take those elements without stepping on the imagery of white mage, the new job could also use cnj in it's lore, again all of this is just exampling a lack of vision for the future), some of them are those that have spoke out against necro already, a few are lucky winners to using lore no against all the examples that later then proved them wrong; although, to be fair MOST people here said unlikely rather than "never ever I wont try to work with you or listen to you even if it's 90% necro like with a different name 'lalalalalala'".

The part we disagree is some people are actually bullying others by saying with certainty things can or can not happen, as I've seen it a few times, on this and many other topics. Of course I note again and again just saying unlikely is not the same (probability based on current information is different than using probability to claim a 100% outcome).

Also on the Egi thing again that's just an example of lack of vision. Lore is important but lore is not static. If I tell you right now the best we can do is a 5 inch tv you can't tell me 20 inches is impossible, well unless you want to stifle conversation just because. That we will go from 5 to 20 in one day unlikely, that we'll NEVER get 20 is just hot air shutting a conversation down just because you can. In this way I'm saying it's best to think of lore like technology, it's grows and what was not possible can absolutely become possible and to treat it 100% static would be a great way to be wrong.

For egi simply that we're 9/14 whole could be the new lore that allows us to imprint 4 times instead of 3. Or whatever. So you mention aether imprinting but then refuse to accept we might have something beyond that, maybe refuse is aggressive wording but you know what I mean- you've presented the problem but refused to generate a solution and then said it's an issue worth telling people no over (at least I assume you're using the 3 egi thing as an example of lore preventing us, in which case I say perfect example where it clearly doesn't if the devs don't want it to). We can easily surmount that issue. It's worth mentioning it as a concern, but I believe you're killing conversations under false guise by saying it's impossible because of X lore like that. Just squashing desires on something that's shown to be solve-able.

Almost all these lore no's, almost all, comes down to a lack of creativity and vison. You don't need to break the lore to figure out how to make something work. If you don't care to make it work of course the answer is "it can't happen" but that's on you for lack of trying.

I'd rather be surrounded by those who try to critically think of solutions than those who'd rather shutdown conversations until proven wrong. Prematurely shutting things down, imo, is worse than trying to critically think through the hoops of the story if it seems difficult (especially if it's difficult). Some people have done that here, some people actively have not. Some have done an interesting line of both sides, trying to think of things that match the vibe but arguing since it's not 100% classic it's therefore 0% embodiment lol, which seems like an aggressive devaluation XD, interestingly some of these people use the argument the dungeon had berserker and thief as embodiment of our current jobs while then also arguing something like that done to necromancer would therefore not make it necromancer.

[Sheldinn]

I think chemist is most likely out of those though probably renamed in order to create a starker contrast between it and the already existing Alchemist DoH job.

I know Yoshi P mentioned a Summoner rework so (while not super likely) I could see summoner be shifted away from their DoT playstyle to focus solely on the summoning aspect and a job like Necromancer or Time Mage being added to fulfill a DoT centric caster playstyle. Personally between the two I'd like to see Time Mage since they're more iconic and could have cool interaction with DoTs like increasing tick rates or pausing/extending timers and such. Necromancer would be a good fit too though since in FFV most their spells were about curses, debuffs, and dots with only a few where they summoned undead/demons.

Berserker is the least likely since warrior fills that niche. However It would be cool to have a heavy hitting melee DPS job. all the current are light, nimble jobs and all the jobs with huge 2h weapons are tanks. So having Berserker or Viking with a giant hammer (kind of like what gaia weilds) would be cool and the separate party roles would help create a level of distinction from warrior.

It is interesting to note that all three of those jobs, Berserker, Chemist, and Necromancer were first featured in FFV (ffv advance in the case of necromancer).