Viper would of been better if it had a different name

[SeverianLyonesse]

I don't like names with "master" in them, they are kind of generic and communicate a kind of puerile obsession with dominance, especially in the case of "puppetmaster" and "beastmaster". Also I think they just are descriptively very weak.

At any rate, this job is very clearly what we see in "Hunter" classes. Things like Druid's Soulbeast in GW2, Hunter's Beastmaster in WoW, classic Hunter subclass Ranger archetype in DnD (Drizzt), etc.

I actually think it is quite ridiculous that they didn't just call the job "Hunter". Zidane may be nominally a thief, but between his sword-staff, status-effect weapons, and "Killer" skillset, he very easily passes as a kind of Hunter/Ranger (and is fairly unique to the series in that respect). Plus, in my opinion, people associate his character more with the "Festival of the Hunt" and the killer soundtrack (there is a track called Hunter's Chance) more than the flavor text of a single weapon.

As far as I care, this is the "Hunter" class and should have been called Hunter.

* I don't think the snake motif communicates Zidane at all. Zidane is never associated with snakes, and his trance form is more "beastlike".
* I think it is fairly unnecessary to the job fantasy. I think it unnecessarily limit's the job's aesthetic to "snakes" when it could have been about more than that or something more primal/bestial.
* I think the term "Viper" is a really weak flavor connection to the weapon, as (1) if this is not a poison dot class then the name feels more arbitrary, and (2) while it may loosely relate to having two swords, I think that whole metaphor falls apart when this is the combining-sword-staff job (how is sword-staff "viperish" at all? While I could grant darting in and out as being viperish, windmilling isn't in the slightest; why isn't this a Hunter with Viper/Hawk stances instead?).

Not to mention, if they *really* wanted a name that coalesced "Thief" and "Ranger", as well as give people a clearer "Corsair" fantasy, "Hunter" would have been, imo, more appropriate. Because what follows from the name "Hunter" is a "Treasure Hunter", which would bring in a nice little bit of Locke Cole thievishness to round out the class, as well as better reflect the expac's "gold" theme.

Overall, imo, it is a fairly weak job design. I think in settling on this Viper name, they pivoted too hard into a really shallow, narrow "snake" motif that imo dilutes what could have been a class that was not only more archetypal/expansive, but better reflected the unique strengths of Zidane's whole character. I mean come on, an ancient, low-magic "Hunter" class that used dynamis would be the perfect way to implement Zidane's trance and Dyne (literally, dynamis) skills. Instead we have this weird poison-snake motif just to be edgy (as well as slap Ninja and Sage players in the face) and I hate it.

And finally, as a matter of archetypes, I think people wanted a "Western" counterpart to Samurai and Ninja as a striking/scouting class. And frankly, "Rangers/Hunters" *are* the "ninjas" of the West, as a matter of their general mythos and role as kind of lone-wolf, transient combat-masters. *That* job fantasy is the perfect counterpart to Ninja; this...is just a fever dream. I will forever be wondering why the Hunter has such a stupid name while Ninja isn't called "Froggy".

Weak concept, with the name just kind of encompassing and reflecting a deeper dearth of creativity and polish. Feels like some single-gimmick shovelware out of a Korean MMO, not a well-faceted Final Fantasy XI/XIV class. Snake was the wrong way to go.

[Darkobra]

Not to mention, if they *really* wanted a name that coalesced "Thief" and "Ranger", as well as give people a clearer "Corsair" fantasy, "Hunter" would have been, imo, more appropriate. Because what follows from the name "Hunter" is a "Treasure Hunter", which would bring in a nice little bit of Locke Cole thievishness to round out the class, as well as better reflect the expac's "gold" theme.

Thing is, Zidane also said he was going to be a great treasure hunter. There's even Alleyway Jack who tells you his real name once you collect enough treasure chests.

Hunter would have definitely been more on point. Viper just hasn't sold me. I'm just hoping there's something bigger we're missing right now.

[Iscah]

But, as I observed, how crummy is it that Ninja lost a unique and very Ninja-y themed skill only to have a class try to stretch "Kiss of the Viper" into an entire job concept?

If ninja had lost Kiss of the Viper and the new job popped up shortly after, you might have an argument there, but it's been gone for years at this point. At most it's a nod to something long lost from the game, or the job viper could be named after something else entirely.

After Sage used the "snake" motifs with Addersting/Addersgall and arguable "fang" weapons, I don't think any name can really excuse the fact that Viper is just the same motif all over again.

It doesn't seem like the same motif at all to me. "Addersgall" conjures up alchemy references to me; nothing to do with fighting in a style inspired by snakes. I never would have connected sage to that idea, and I don't believe any concept art has either.

Also, I hadn't originally realised both the posts I quoted are from the same person. Both of them seem to be "viper is unoriginal because it's taking all its imagery from [single existing thing]", but they're different things.

[Zarkovitch]

No, it a perfect name. Remind me of 2000 era of xbox360. Keep perfection at it is.

[Shurrikhan]

I don't like names with "master" in them, they are kind of generic and communicate a kind of puerile obsession with dominance, especially in the case of "puppetmaster" and "beastmaster". Also I think they just are descriptively very weak.

At any rate, this job is very clearly what we see in "Hunter" classes. Things like Druid's Soulbeast in GW2, Hunter's Beastmaster in WoW, classic Hunter subclass Ranger archetype in DnD (Drizzt), etc.

It has almost nothing in common with GW2's Soulbeast (this neither uses beasts nor 'eats' them to convert their attacks instead into buffs, and GW2 Soulbeast tends to be used with an axe+other melee or longbow, neither of which have anything to do with dualswords, let alone a two-sided spear or twin-blade).

It's nothing like Hunter's Beastmaster (a purely ranged specialization that deals most of its damage through pets and carries the majority of its complexity through the timing of bleeding enemies with its shots) in WoW.

It is nothing like the Hunter subclass Ranger archetype in DnD (which tends to require Finesse weapons in order to be a competitive build and even then is outperformed by Rogue builds unless you actually make good use of your pet and your ranged capacity).

And frankly, "Rangers/Hunters" *are* the "ninjas" of the West, as a matter of their general mythos and role as kind of lone-wolf, transient combat-masters.

DnD rangers are not combat-masters. They simply have a good balance of direct to indirect skills useful for questing.

I don't think the snake motif communicates Zidane at all. Zidane is never associated with snakes, and his trance form is more "beastlike".

Probably because it's not intended to? You're making an unfounded assumption and then saying it disappoints you because it doesn't fit that unfounded assumption.

I will forever be wondering why the Hunter has such a stupid name while Ninja isn't called "Froggy".

"I will forever be wondering why the staff-fighter is named Black Mage."

It's not a Hunter. It has nothing in common with other games Hunters. It shows no evidence of wanting to be a Hunter.

I think the term "Viper" is a really weak flavor connection to the weapon

It's at least as likely that the name has little to do with the weapons, just as "Sage" has little to do with its floating Galactica toys, "Red Mage" has little to do with swords, "Bard" has little necessarily to do with bows, and even "Machinist" would not necessitate a pistol. We have what would appear to be a viper symbol as part of the key art.

It may well be that the weapon was fit to the needs of that group of people or its martial proficiencies, rather than the group naming themselves after the weapon.

Zidane may be nominally a thief, but between his sword-staff, status-effect weapons, and "Killer" skillset, he very easily passes as a kind of Hunter/Ranger

Zidane's abilities: Steal (take an item), Flee (escape battle), Canvas (see the enemy's items), Distract (allows back attack), Imbued Weapon (inflict weapon's status/special effect onto target), Goad (inflicts Troubled), Patsy (sacrifice self to give HP and MP to others), Lucky Seven (Luck-based damage), Thievery (deal damage based on Speed and number of successful steals).

His Trance abilities give him a bit of second theme via unaspected attacks and elemental AoEs, but that's it. His core is... through and through... a Thief. Which is why the game even classifies him as a Thief. And likely why his very profession is... a thief.

Plus, in my opinion, people associate his character more with the "Festival of the Hunt" and the killer soundtrack (there is a track called Hunter's Chance) more than the flavor text of a single weapon.

Zidane has a literal theme. Hunter's Chance is about the competition against Freya, a Dragoon who literally gets more powerful by hunting certain creatures, more so a theme of/for Zidane specifically.
___________


Again, Severian, I would love a scouting hero that was a bit more wild, tribal, etc., in keeping with Zidane under Trance, but... none of your warrants for saying Viper should be that (or even that Zidane was that except by quite a stretch that, even then, applies only to when he was in Trance) make any damn sense.

By all means, prefer a Hunter over what we're getting, but Viper's not being a Hunter is not a mere naming issue, especially if DnD's Ranger, GW2's Soulbeast, WoW's Hunter, etc., have anything to do with what you mean by that name.


_________

WoW Hunters have access to swords and polearms and can dual wield.

Two out of three specs have no melee attacks outside of a single fall-back slow and do not equip melee weapons; apart from that skill, every attack requires a ranged-weapon. Even for the remaining "Melee" spec, the melee attacks do not work without a two-handed weapon and its only advantage over other melee is the uptime afforded by carrying a hand-crossbow.

None of the Hunter specs can dual-wield.

If you're playing Classic, then sure, they have melee weapons. As stat sticks. They aren't actually used in combat unless you're bound within melee range somehow and have the MP to spare, since it's painfully inefficient.

But easily the two most common archetypes are some sort of bow, or some sort of dual wielding sword/axe thing.

The most common archetype of a Ranger is a guy skilled with a bow or crossbow who has another weapon (hatchet, sidesword, etc.) as a fallback weapon.

The sole archetypal weight for a 'dual-wielding Ranger' in DnD, something wildly impractical that would reduce the efficacy of their other more unique actions by using up all their bonus actions for poor amounts of extra damage compared to what a Rogue or Fighter could put out, begins and ends with Drizzt. It's an outlier, not a norm.

The Hunter sub-class was made so people could better play as a Drizzt-alike, but it's not a build that particularly synergizes with the rest of a Ranger's kit (has nothing to do with Hunting, only to do with cumulative and/or AoE effect against specific types of enemies, effects which would do far more good in the hands of a Monk, Fighter, Berserker, or Paladin).