Job Titles Not Class Renaming

[MagicofGaia]

Very yes and no to a lot of these topics.

For post #1, I think some areas you've discussed have some merit. But a lot of what you're suggesting is a little ridiculous.



Some class names I do agree need to be changed, such as:

Gladiator: A tanking class with sword and board is a defender, a paladin, etc. Not a 'gladiator'
Lancer: is acceptable due to the removal of the wyvern aspect.
Archer/Ranger: works for me as well. Pugilist/Monk either way doesn't bother me.
Thaumaturge: wtf is a thaumaturge? It's a friggin Red Mage
Maurader: No issues

Conjurer: as an entire class is kind of messed up to me. It seems to play more like Scholar than anything else in a way. But both white and black magic have been combined. I understand that it makes a healing class more 'solo-able', but for people that want to fill Dps roles in parties, and 'not' main heal, it leaves us stuck. Combining the two was a bad choice in my opinion. I agree with Alicia_WM about the different weapon choices to split the jobs.

[Galamantyl]

Gladiator: A tanking class with sword and board is a defender, a paladin, etc. Not a 'gladiator'

Okay, so your definition of a Paladin is any dude who can wield a shield and wear armor? Instead of the more common traditional definition which was a holy warrior. Also, how would defender/paladin even come close to a dagger-wielding class?

[zaviermhigo]

Not to be too technical but the definition of Paladin is even more vague, it really means "someone who fights for a cause" having originated in the Courts of Charlemagne, it meant someone who fought for Charlemagne's cause. (just a francophile here)

[Galamantyl]

Not to be too technical but the definition of Paladin is even more vague, it really means "someone who fights for a cause" having originated in the Courts of Charlemagne, it meant someone who fought for Charlemagne's cause. (just a francophile here)

Right, which is why I was careful to say "common traditional definition". Although it would've been more accurate to say "modern fantasy" definition, the definitions of modern fantasy are just plain f***ed by today's standards, and I was afraid to use those words.

[Cairdeas]

In Final Fantasy terms a Paladin was always a "Sword and/or shield user who used White Magic to assist in defending others from danger."

[MagicofGaia]

Okay, so your definition of a Paladin is any dude who can wield a shield and wear armor? Instead of the more common traditional definition which was a holy warrior. Also, how would defender/paladin even come close to a dagger-wielding class?

My point is that Gladiator is too vague for a 'tanking' class to me. The term can be used way too broadly, and Paladin is more core to the idea of a protector in Final Fantasy.

If we actually are waiting to see something like Paladin in an advanced class in a broader picture, then I can withhold my comment. But in the available classes we have right now, that is simply my opinion.

[Cairdeas]

Also gladiator doesn't have to be a tanking class >.>

[MagicofGaia]

Also gladiator doesn't have to be a tanking class >.>

This is true, however being that there are only 6 starting classes, for any group xp until they release new classes, Gladiator is the most logical tank.

[Galamantyl]

This is true, however being that there are only 6 starting classes, for any group xp until they release new classes, Gladiator is the most logical tank.

That still doesn't change the fact it doesn't have to be. Could be considered a thief since they also wield daggers. Also, shield is a separate class entirely and is referred to as "Sentinel", which sounds like a good enough class name for a "tank" to me, unless your opinion is otherwise, then there's just simply no satisfying you.