Gunblade...that is all

[LioJen]

Please no. Gunblades are a special kind of stupid best kept with dual wielding, scythes, and all the other awful weapon ideas.

Are you serious? All of those are real historical weapons and fighting styles. Scythes were re-purposed from farm equipment into weapons of war, dual wielding was used extensively throughout history perhaps most famously by Musashi Miyamoto, and gunblades... have you never seen a bayonet? (No, a bayonet is not like the FFVIII gunblades but it IS pretty much the same thing as the Garlean gunblades which are what is being proposed here)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_scythe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niten_Ichi-ry%C5%AB
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayonet

[Kitru]

All of those are real historical weapons and fighting styles.

You're only right about dual wielding, which I have to facepalm anyone that might think that it's not a legitimate combat style. You can find historical precedent for dual wielding pretty much any combination of sword, axe, dagger, hammer/mace, or pick. The only time I'd consider dual wielding as being unrealistic is when you're talking about firearms/crossbows (e.g. Diablo 3's Demon Hunter).

As to the war scythe, it was nothing like what people think of when you talk about a scythe. A war scythe had more in common with a glaive than an actual scythe used for harvesting. It was only referred to as a "war scythe" because it was a standard scythe converted from a tool into a weapon by beating the blade to be straight rather than perpendicular to the haft (and using a straight haft instead of the curved haft a farming scythe used). Equating a war scythe to the scythes that people expect to wield when talking about scythes as weapons makes absolutely no sense. It's much like the etymological variation of the word "dragoon" as it applies to real warfare (mounted infantry/armored units) as it applies to the fantasy concept ("dragon knight" or some variant thereof).

Gunblades existed, and they weren't just muskets/rifles with bayonets attached. A bayonet was simply an attachment that allowed a rifle to be used in melee combat (as a spear) when firing it was largely ineffective (i.e. in melee). Bayonets were also pretty much always removable; they were an attachment to a weapon rather than an integral part of it, which is what is required of a gunblade. A gunblade is a sword with a gun built into it whereas a bayonet is a blade/spearhead attached to a gun; the primary function is what really matters, and a gunblade's primary function was hacking and slashing (which is born out in all of the FF variations; just look at how Gaius uses his).

Historical gunblades, as in "the unholy marriage of a gun and a sword", did exist but they never saw appreciable use (pretty much all of them were experimental or novelties) because they're laughably ineffective thanks to the huge increase in weight necessitated by slapping a barrel and firing/reloading mechanism to a sword (which are already heavier than most people think). If you want a relevant link, look here instead of at bayonets, since it actually refers to swords with guns attached rather than guns with blades attached.

As such, both scythes and gunblades are terrible ideas for weapons. Yes, they *could* be brought in because there are real world examples (you could probably find an example of someone fighting with a harvesting scythe), but there was also a steam powered (i.e. propelled by steam instead of gunpowered) Gatling gun made in the US Civil War and phrenology was taken as a legitimate field of science for centuries: humans have an incredible history of ludicrous ideas that would make anyone facepalm.

The only way that gunblades are going to be brought in is if you abandon the real world principles and just apply the Rule of Cool, which is what a lot of the aesthetics of the FF series has been built off of anyways (like Yoshitaka Amano's strange belt fetish; who would want to wear clothes seemingly comprised primarily of belts?).

A class built around gunblades presents more of a problem from a lore perspective, given that, as mentioned before, gun-weapons are weapons of the Garlean elite and player characters are Eorzeans, not to mention that classes are themselves based off of guilds. Gun-weapons will work fine as vanity weapons for existing classes (which it already seems the devs are wont to do given the distribution of gun-weapons amongst the named Garlean matching the distribution of weapons amongst the current classes), but I doubt they'll ever be anything other than vanity weapons.

[LioJen]

snip

First of all, you're wrong about swords being heavier than most people think. It's the opposite. Historical swords were in fact much lighter than popular depictions, especially greatswords.

Secondly, there are no real world principles in this story. Just sticking to the weapons, have you SEEN the shapes of some of these things? They would break in half on the first hit if they didn't stab the user in the eye first. Applying real world logic to a world where a book is a viable weapon of war is a fruitless endeavor.

Third, Amano does not have a belt fetish, you're thinking of Nomura. Amano has a bead and pattern fetish.

Fourth, it would be very easy to fit into the lore as we already have groups of Garleans opposing the Empire's plans with Cid and his Ironworks. It's not far fetched to have a faction of the military break away and side with the Eorzeans in a later expansion, allowing us to use the weapons and armor they took with them. Who's to say the Garlean Empire does not have its own classes and guilds as well?

[DarkStar]

Kitru, just thought I'd let you know, but the original depiction of Dragoons in FF, that being dragon-mounted knights, is actually VERY close to the historical Dragoon, as they were just heavy infantry that were given horses to get to the battlefield quickly. It was only when firearms were introduced that Dragoons were turned into a form of cavalry, and even then it could still be said that the FF Dragoon was still faithful to their origin. Just replace "Horse" with "Dragon" or "Wind Drake".

Now then, on topic, I'd very much like to see how SE would accomplish a Gunblade using class. As of this point, we have a few good main examples of how to accomplish a "Gunblade User", though I really hope they don't take any inspiration at all from FF8, simply because even I would have a hard time suspending my disbelief that a weapon like that is even the slightest bit believable, and I usually do a good job at disbelief suspension. Also, it's just a primitive vibroblade, and that'd be a pretty dumb class gimmick if you ask me. "Press the "Trigger" hotkey at just the right point in the attack's animation to get full damage!" Bleh...

[Kitru]

Kitru, just thought I'd let you know, but the original depiction of Dragoons in FF, that being dragon-mounted knights, is actually VERY close to the historical Dragoon, as they were just heavy infantry that were given horses to get to the battlefield quickly. It was only when firearms were introduced that Dragoons were turned into a form of cavalry, and even then it could still be said that the FF Dragoon was still faithful to their origin. Just replace "Horse" with "Dragon" or "Wind Drake".

First off, historical dragoons were mounted infantry which is light by necessity; if they were heavily armored/armed, they'd be better served by remaining cavalry. Their purpose was rapid deployment and movement to which heavy armor and weapons don't contribute to. As such, the heavy armor that dragoons use in games, especially Kain, who used armor as heavy as Cecil's, aren't congruous with the historical units. Furthermore, dragoons in the FF series and in modern fantasy archetype, when linked to dragons, fought while mounted on their dragons as opposed to using dragons only for mobility, which was the purpose of the horses for historical dragoons. "Infantry" is the operant word in the term "mounted infantry", and it refers to fighting on foot even if the term "mounted" generally means "on horse"; for mounted infantry, "mounted" just refers to how they get to where they're going to so that they can start fighting on foot.

Secondly, the etymological origins of the term "dragoon", while not entirely concrete, are most likely based upon the French descriptor of the firearm carried by a specific evolution of their mounted infantry (i.e. the gun and dragons both belched fire), hence the etymological similarity of the two terms. Dragoons existed only after they began using firearms, before which they would simply have been mounted infantry.

Now then, on topic, I'd very much like to see how SE would accomplish a Gunblade using class.

Given how gunblades are used in game by the Garleans, I would expect it to be a DoW class that uses combo melee attacks as its baseline functionality with the non-combo attacks being ranged (think Dragoon but Heavy Thrust and Phlebotomize have a 20y range) in order to force melee to be the primary combat methodology. I'd expect to see some degree of magic-martial fusion as well; probably something like the blue fire and/or cross-slash that Gaius uses. They'd probably have slightly worse damage than the other mDPS, since they wouldn't be as screwed by short stints of being out of melee as the pure mDPS, but better than the ranged deeps.

[Zohar_Lahar]

Given how gunblades are used in game by the Garleans, I would expect it to be a DoW class that uses combo melee attacks as its baseline functionality with the non-combo attacks being ranged (think Dragoon but Heavy Thrust and Phlebotomize have a 20y range) in order to force melee to be the primary combat methodology. I'd expect to see some degree of magic-martial fusion as well; probably something like the blue fire and/or cross-slash that Gaius uses. They'd probably have slightly worse damage than the other mDPS, since they wouldn't be as screwed by short stints of being out of melee as the pure mDPS, but better than the ranged deeps.

Though this be an old topic, its ideas seem relevant for future content (especially if 4.0+ takes us to Ala Mhigo). And I personally think gunblade would be the ideal weapon for a hybrid melee/ranged DPS class, such as Soldier or even Red Mage. The latter could take on the magical aspects you mentioned, albeit with more classical flair rather than Gaius's magitek.

[Kitru]

First of all, you're wrong about swords being heavier than most people think. It's the opposite. Historical swords were in fact much lighter than popular depictions, especially greatswords.

I've dealt with people using swords for the first time numerous times. They are heavier than most people think because most people don't realize that swords are big chunks of steel. It's why the first instinct of most people when wielding a traditional English longsword is to use it in two hands instead of the one-hand that it's intended to be used in. What most people confuse the overall weight with is the *balance* of most swords which, assuming it's actually a well crafted sword that's properly weighted, makes it remarkably easy to swing once you've gotten used to the weight. The substantial weight of a combat ready sword is the reason why fullers were developed, in order to cut down weight without reducing structural integrity.

This is, of course, when dealing with weapons actually designed to hit hard enough to cause significant damage. Sport weapons, like fencing epee/foil/sabers, are much lighter than most people think because they're not supposed to deal damage. The show weapons that people put on their walls are also lighter because they're not made for combat: they have partial tangs and are made with inferior steel because neither of those aspects makes a sword look any less impressive and it has the benefit of making it cheaper (and therefore easier to sell).

Secondly, there are no real world principles in this story. Just sticking to the weapons, have you SEEN the shapes of some of these things? They would break in half on the first hit if they didn't stab the user in the eye first. Applying real world logic to a world where a book is a viable weapon of war is a fruitless endeavor.

The real world principles apply as far as the willing suspension of disbelief is concerned. The Rule of Cool that I mentioned before and the willing suspension of disbelief are at odds with one another. People are easily willing to suspend their disbelief such that a book is a weapon of war because they already suspend disbelief concerning magic: the book is an instrument of magic and magic is itself the weapon of war, not the book. People are willing to suspend disbelief concerning unrealistic weapons and absurd armor because those are aesthetic choices; axes and swords are practical weapons of war, which is what matters more than what the weapon itself looks like.

People are less willing to suspend disbelief concerning completely unrealistic weapons like gunblades, buster swords, and personal minicannons, which is why they are accepted only when their use is exaggerated by the Rule of Cool: there is less willingness to suspend disbelief and it only gets overcome by the exaggerated awesomeness of their use.

A lot of it depends upon what environment the developers are attempting to foster. The more you delve into the Rule of Cool the more audacious the environment becomes and the less "real" it seems (and, yes, realism matters even in fantasy games, which is why axes are slow and daggers don't hit hard), which is what the developers must decide for themselves.

Third, Amano does not have a belt fetish, you're thinking of Nomura. Amano has a bead and pattern fetish.

Yeah, forgot that Nomura took over on 10 with Tidus having an entire arm covered in belts while Amano worked on it, but Amano was in charge of 9, where you've got Wedge who is, quite literally, dressed entirely in belts along with massive belts or a series of belts being a highly visible aspect of most of the main characters (especially Steiner). The dizzying array of sashes that Amano tends to use (especially on 6) that I was conflating with the belt fetish probably fits in better with your "bead and pattern" fetish, though.

Fourth, it would be very easy to fit into the lore as we already have groups of Garleans opposing the Empire's plans with Cid and his Ironworks.

Cid, Biggs, and Wedge are pretty much the entirety of the Garlean defectors. The fact that gunblades are weapons of the *military* elite further bolstered by the remarkable predilection the Garlean military has towards loyalty to the military dictatorship that the Garlean Empire seems to be, I would find it hard to believe that you'd see defection on a large enough scale to justify adding a player class.

It's not far fetched to have a faction of the military break away and side with the Eorzeans in a later expansion, allowing us to use the weapons and armor they took with them.

The problem with it being an expansion is that the game has the timeline follow the player's level. If the expansion added a new class, new players would want to be able to use it from the start, which wouldn't work with the timeline we've currently got. They would need to either add it as a "prestige" class, similar to how DKs were first implemented in WoW, or change the entire story we've currently got to account for where they're progressing it to, which, given that ARR is a pretty story intensive game (you don't just go from quest hub to quest hub; there's a well defined story that you follow from 1-50+ and the devs have actually said that they think that the story is very important).

Who's to say the Garlean Empire does not have its own classes and guilds as well?

We already know it has its own classes, given the various Garlean units out there and their consistent names: Garleans have Medicavi instead of Conjurers, Hoplomacavi instead of Gladiators, Eques instead of Lancers, Sagittarius instead of Archers, Signifers instead of Thaumaturges, etc. One could probably make the assumption that there is something akin to guilds within the Empire, but they're pretty much guaranteed to be as ensconced within the Garlean civilization as the Eorzean guilds are to their own nation given what the guilds represent (a formal organization for the training/accreditation of practitioners as well as a collective for negotiation and interaction with other large scale organizations such as the governing bodies of states and city-states).

I'm not saying that there's no chance whatsoever that we'll get a Gunblade wielding class; I just don't think it that it's likely given everything involved. We're a lot more likely to get a bunch of other classes before we get a Gunblade class.

[Andevom]

Amano was in charge of 9, where you've got Wedge who is, quite literally, dressed entirely in belts

His name is Blank, and I think the most disturbing thing about him is that he literally appears to be comprised of various portions of skin sewn together. Belts be damned.

[Kiteless]

You're only right about dual wielding, which I have to facepalm anyone that might think that it's not a legitimate combat style. You can find historical precedent for dual wielding pretty much any combination of sword, axe, dagger, hammer/mace, or pick. The only time I'd consider dual wielding as being unrealistic is when you're talking about firearms/crossbows (e.g. Diablo 3's Demon Hunter).

While dual-wielding in melee combat does have precedents in history, a lot of the time, it would rarely be as it was depicted in videogames, where the act of dual-wielding is over-romanticized and overdone in every game to the point of being, at its best, entirely uninteresting.

I could get behind using a smaller offhand weapon as a parrying-blade, but keep the rest out.

[Kitru]

While dual-wielding in melee combat does have precedents in history, a lot of the time, it would rarely be as it was depicted in videogames, where the act of dual-wielding is over-romanticized and overdone in every game to the point of being, at its best, entirely uninteresting.

I could get behind using a smaller offhand weapon as a parrying-blade, but keep the rest out.

I'll agree that dual wielding is often overdone in most games, but there was more to dual wielding than just using a main gauche. The problem with most dual wielding is that the systems generally get designed such that you're dual wielding a pair of full sized swords instead of the smaller offhand or 2 comparatively small weapons that has almost always happened historically. It's even more problematic when said combat doesn't actually realize that the offhand acts as support to the mainhand rather than acting as another full on weapon that you simply alternate between.

One of the more popular dual wielding fighting styles I've worked with and experienced was using a sword in one hand and an axe in the other. It's an absolutely amazing style for fighting someone with a sword and board since you can use the axe to hook their shield and move them around, which can't be done with a sword. If you do it right, the shield ends up being a bigger risk to them because you're making them fight around it rather than the other way around. The biggest advantage of dual wielding is versatility: you can wield 2 different weapons with different benefits and advantages and, even if you're using two of the same weapon, you can have each of them doing something different and, even more importantly, you can swap on the fly. On the field, southpaws often have a distinct advantage over other people because they're not used to fighting someone with a mirrored stance as opposed to a complimentary one; if you're dual wielding weapons of roughly commensurate size (i.e. not using a rapier and main gauche), you can swap stance on the fly and deny that advantage (or gain it over someone else).

The problem with the implementation of dual wielding in games is that it acts like weapons are only there for attacking, so they only consider the potential offensive advantages, which are basically summed up as "swing more often" because games are forced to simplify. Hell, the major advantages of polearms, even those that *aren't* 10' long, are the fact that you'll have a greater reach than someone using a sword and you also have a 5' long heavy wooden pole to hide behind if they close, neither of which get brought up in most games.

Dual wielding is big in games because, while it's a legitimate combat style in real life, it gets exaggerated benefits in games due to the need to simplify. It doesn't help that you can die without any problems in a game so emphasizing offense over defense is a lot more appealing than it is in real life. Fighting defensively only helps tanks in games; in real life, you either fight defensively or you die because there are no healing potions and there are no respawn points.

Honestly, where ARR is concerned, I doubt we'll see any dual wielding of full sized weapons thanks to the way the devs have set up it up. The only real classes I see dual wielding in ARR are NIN/THF (2 daggers/short swords), *maybe* SAM (katana and wakizashi), and RDM (rapier and main gauche).