Why do we have classes AND jobs again?

[Colvin]

As Ranger focuses more on damage and Bard on support, when they change from Archer, Ranger loses ability to cast Swiftsong, and Bard loses Raging Strike.

See that doesnt sound diverse enough to me to be actual separate classes... seems like seperate ability tiers at BEST

[whoopeeragon]

See that doesnt sound diverse enough to me to be actual separate classes... seems like seperate ability tiers at BEST

They're different JOBS not classes, which is the point! They share the Archer's basic skill-set, but lose what is definitely not part of their specialisation. Meanwhile, Archer can be expanded further by not just being able to use the basic tiers of those specialisations, but learning variants of both that are not as potent as Ranger or Bard's specialised skills but enough to warrant it as a versatile option.

given the options they have, I don't see why they wouldn't do it. Of course, I also don't want fencer because I love RDM and wouldnt want to level another class just to use a bunch of abilities I already have. Also, I can't see fencer really being all that different than GLD with no shield... maybe less defence... In terms of things like repost, GLD already has Phalanx which is already a reposte.

I don't want to see classes added just to add jobs because it is just more time spent grinding to grind.

I personally also don't see a problem adding a class to level it up. Is it so hard to level and work to get to know to play a game? As far as I know, FFXI takes even longer to level up considering it's expanse of playable jobs, and they're about to add two more...

To me, it sounds as if you are advocating a reason to actually USE classes rather then remove jobs. o.o I'm very confused as towards your stance now.

[Valmonte]

They're different JOBS not classes, which is the point! They share the Archer's basic skill-set, but lose what is definitely not part of their specialisation. Meanwhile, Archer can be expanded further by not just being able to use the basic tiers of those specialisations, but learning variants of both that are not as potent as Ranger or Bard's specialised skills but enough to warrant it as a versatile option.

that's the problem itself Classes are treated as jobs on training wheels.

[whoopeeragon]

that's the problem itself Classes are treated as jobs on training wheels.

Which is why they need to streamline it. Give classes MORE class-only abilities that leave them versatile but a greater option to use outside.

[Valmonte]

Which is why they need to streamline it. Give classes MORE class-only abilities that leave them versatile but a greater option to use outside.

which is what jobs are.

[whoopeeragon]

which is what jobs are.

So you're asking for jobs to get abilities outside of their specialization, to make a job be able to do anything...aren't you just asking for classes and not jobs then?

I'm starting to question is people really know what the difference between jobs and classes are...

[Colvin]

I'm starting to question is people really know what the difference between jobs and classes are...

Some of us think that they should just have made jobs permanant upgrades to classes and kept the diversity. The emphasis to perform a certain job in a party can then be elected via new abilities which inevitably take up ability slots and force you to a specific behavior without the need of the class/job separation. But this may be to your point...

[Valmonte]

So you're asking for jobs to get abilities outside of their specialization, to make a job be able to do anything...aren't you just asking for classes and not jobs then?

I'm starting to question is people really know what the difference between jobs and classes are...

Take away the AF and the Job Title and what have you got. a class with class specific abilitys

[Colvin]

that's the problem itself Classes are treated as jobs on training wheels.

Well I kind of think they should be... problem I see is they keep dragging the dead corpse along.