Please do not lock Jobs to the Weapon Class that unlocks them.

[Rowyne]

Thaumaturge=White Mage

By Menphina, I hope not. I'm a Conjurer aspiring to be a White Mage. I've barely touched Thaumaturge (or, as my old LS used to call it, Thermal Turd). >.<

I chose CON believing it to be more the path of the healer based on the desc on the official game site:

Attuned to the essence of all things around them, the conjurers' intimacy with all forms of being enables them to shift between both offensive and defensive magic as needed.

Wheras THM sounded like a pure damage-dealing caster:

Thaumaturges are unparalleled in their powers of destruction, eclipsing even the Desciples of War.

I really hope the dev team keeps this in mind when assigning jobs to classes.

[Warlyx]

so what DD classes are going to win in ex-change for being a job?

i suspect that while in job mode u wont be able to have cross-class skills? only class+new jobs skills /traits

so classes are for grinding , and jobs for party play.....

[Sorel]

It's not difficult to restrict a class ability to a certain job or set of jobs. For example, Bloodbath currently requires "Disciples of War and Magic." How would it then be a problem to say it is only available to job Warrior versus also being available to Dark Knight? Restricting classes and restricting jobs do not have to be intertwined.

True, that is possible. If the Development Team do what is described above, it would look like this.

Bloodbath
Optimal Rank: 6
Requires: Disciples of War or Magic
Permits: Warrior or Dark Knight

This not what I would consider the ideal solution, but it would work for this facet of the problem.

And who is to say that the number of jobs available to a class has to be the same for each class? Each discipline does not have the same number of classes, so why would each class need the same number of jobs? Maybe a Gladiator can be Paladin, Warrior, or Dark Knight, but a Lancer can only be Dragoon or Warrior. It is not blasphemy to do this.

Well, we'd have to put aside what Bayohne said the Dev Team stated. But let's do that for the sake of argument.

Using the example above, if Gladiator can be 3 Jobs (Paladin, Warrior, Dark Knight), but Lancer can only be 2 Jobs (Dragoon, Warrior) ... that makes Gladiators more versatile in parties than Lancers. Which makes them more useful. Which makes them more in demand by party leaders. Lancers in turn would become less useful because Gladiators can do one of their Jobs already (Warrior).

To balance that, the Development Team would have to make the Lancer's remaining Job (Dragoon) 2/3rds more powerful than Warrior, Paladin and Dark Knight ... to offset the lack of access to a third Job and the overlap of a second Job with Gladiator. Otherwise Lancer well become a solo Class and Dragoon a solo Job, because party leaders would invite Gladiators over Lancers every time.

This is why arbitrary Class-Job restrictions are literally counterproductive to maintaining balance. They create more balancing work for the Dev Team than they save ... both in the present and down the road when new Jobs or Classes are added.

If the Lancer above at least had access to the Paladin or Dark Knight Job he could compete for party invites on a level playing field with Gladiator. A party leader would know that if he loses the party's only Gladiator, he can fall back on the party's Lancer. He may or may not be equally effective, but at least he can fill the slot ... at least he has a chance. Without access, the Lancer can't possibly fill the slot and has no chance. None. And neither would the party. It would have to disband.

All that aside, personally, I think that Lancers and their abilities of debuffing and draining would make excellent Dark Knights. But with 1-to-1 Job restrictions we will never find out. Just a thought.

[SuzakuCMX]

Spoke to the dev. team to try and wrangle some more details regarding the upcoming job system. The current thinking is to have one job for one class. So for example, if you are a gladiator, the job you could unlock would be paladin, etc. Right now, we can't give any further details about the possibility of having multiple jobs per class.

To try and stave off the coming flood of "So if gladiator becomes paladin, then what will xyz class unlock?" You'll have to stay tuned for more details in the future!

All this says to me is that each class unlocks one job. Not that each class can only use one job.

Maybe I lack comprehension or maybe it's purposely ambiguous but I think you guys are reading too much into it.

[Sorel]

The current thinking is to have one job for one class.

The word "for" is too imprecise. Does "for" mean "unlock" or does it mean "available to"?? The implications of each are very different.

So for example, if you are a gladiator, the job you could unlock would be paladin, etc.

This sentence seems to indicate the the word "for" in the previous sentence meant "unlock".

Right now, we can't give any further details about the possibility of having multiple jobs per class.

Again, "having" is too imprecise a word. Does "having" mean "unlocking" or does it mean "playing as"??

Simply put, Bayohne's post requires clarification that only the Community and/or Development Team can provide. Until then, this topic is still very debatable.

[Physic]

True, that is possible. If the Development Team do what is described above, it would look like this.

Bloodbath
Optimal Rank: 6
Requires: Disciples of War or Magic
Permits: Warrior or Dark Knight

This not what I would consider the ideal solution, but it would work for this facet of the problem.



Well, we'd have to put aside what Bayohne said the Dev Team stated. But let's do that for the sake of argument.

Using the example above, if Gladiator can be 3 Jobs (Paladin, Warrior, Dark Knight), but Lancer can only be 2 Jobs (Dragoon, Warrior) ... that makes Gladiators more versatile in parties than Lancers. Which makes them more useful. Which makes them more in demand by party leaders. Lancers in turn would become less useful because Gladiators can do one of their Jobs already (Warrior).

To balance that, the Development Team would have to make the Lancer's remaining Job (Dragoon) 2/3rds more powerful than Warrior, Paladin and Dark Knight ... to offset the lack of access to a third Job and the overlap of a second Job with Gladiator. Otherwise Lancer well become a solo Class and Dragoon a solo Job, because party leaders would invite Gladiators over Lancers every time.

This is why arbitrary Class-Job restrictions are literally counterproductive to maintaining balance. They create more balancing work for the Dev Team than they save ... both in the present and down the road when new Jobs or Classes are added.

If the Lancer above at least had access to the Paladin or Dark Knight Job he could compete for party invites on a level playing field with Gladiator. A party leader would know that if he loses the party's only Gladiator, he can fall back on the party's Lancer. He may or may not be equally effective, but at least he can fill the slot ... at least he has a chance. Without access, the Lancer can't possibly fill the slot and has no chance. None. And neither would the party. It would have to disband.

All that aside, personally, I think that Lancers and their abilities of debuffing and draining would make excellent Dark Knights. But with 1-to-1 Job restrictions we will never find out. Just a thought.

gladiator having 3 jobs available doesnt really matter as long as he can only play one job at once. doesnt matter if a sword user can do 3 roles, what matters is the roles, in ffxi sword user would have been pld rdm thf warrior dancer etc,

now if glad is the only tank role, which is possible, then glad is powerful, soo hmmm i wonder how many roles they are going to choose, it really looks kind of wonky when you think about it, having only 7 roles, and tieing 1 to each class, no class really fits the standard roles, except glad being tank.

[Warlyx]

in FFXI thf and dancer used Daggers , warrior used axes =/

sword users = pld , blu , and rdm (while solo or /nin)

[SuzakuCMX]

The word "for" is too imprecise. Does "for" mean "unlock" or does it mean "available to"?? The implications of each are very different.



This sentence seems to indicate the the word "for" in the previous sentence meant "unlock".



Again, "having" is too imprecise a word. Does "having" mean "unlocking" or does it mean "playing as"??

Simply put, Bayohne's post requires clarification that only the Community and/or Development Team can provide. Until then, this topic is still very debatable.

Exactly.

Bayohne's post didn't do much for this thread IMO

[Physic]

in FFXI thf and dancer used Daggers , warrior used axes =/

sword users = pld , blu , and rdm (while solo or /nin)

warrior and thf also had sword access, weaponskills, etc. but really the point is, One discipline having access to 3 roles and another having two isnt really that important.

[Sorel]

warrior and thf also had sword access, weaponskills, etc. but really the point is, One discipline having access to 3 roles and another having two isnt really that important.

I understand your point ... but I disagree, respectfully.

Entire game dynamics can be altered on these details. I'm sure the FFXI Development Team didn't think it "that important" that they gave Utsusemi (the most effective tanking ability) and Dual-Wield (a powerful DD ability) to a single Job (Ninja) ... helping make it the most powerful and versatile Job in that game.

I would like this Dev Team to avoid that particular mistake in FFXIV.