Ninja vs. Dragoon

[silentwindfr]

the new combo finisher is added to the existing combo, leaving the dragoon with 2 combo of 4 skill
ninja on the other hand have 4 different combo...

[Zophar]

Are you familiar with Akiza? If so then meet the Akiza for the ninja population.

Oh... That's... I see. Moving on then.

[Alahra]

Also, I think it went with slashing less for the fact that there were already 2 piercing dps, as they fact that there were 0 slashing dps.

You could essentially make the same argument for Machinist to use bludgeoning DPS, though. We currently only have one of those, and right now we have 2 piercing. If Machinist is piercing, that would mean 1 bludgeoning and 3 piercing, whereas 2 bludgeoning and 2 piercing would strike a better balance in variety. It really comes down to how SE decides to describe it (and also what they feel is better for overall group composition balance). Some pen and paper RPGs have classified black powder bullets as bludgeoning before, so it's probably not really out of the question.

With both BRD and Machinst getting "caster" stances, I think it's fairly possible their DPS will be more comparable to caster DPS in the expansion when they needed for utility. What that will mean, if true, is that if Machinist *is* piercing, DRG+BRD+Machinist will likely be fairly potent (outside, of course, of fight mechanics requiring magical damage).

[Zophar]

They could have made nin's use blunt daggers. That would have made just as much sense. Besides, I see no reason why the number of piercing, slashing, and blunt users needs to be balanced, and nowhere is it written that it should or will. And making a dps, that should obviously use piercing damage, blunt, just for shits and giggles, rather than adding something that makes sense as being a blunt user, is just.... silly.

[Alahra]

You're correct that they've never said they want the DPS types to be balanced across the classes, but you were the one that said they decided to make NIN slashing in part because of the number of slashing DPS there were. If the number of DPS classes for a type matters for one DPS type, it could matter to them for another.

Edit to add: Honestly I didn't realize they used blunt in game to refer to MNK damage. That's not really the best term for them to use since blunt has two connotations--the one being how you're normally using it, a "blunt-edge" weapon that's not intended for serious harm, and the other being "bludgeoning." Most games with these three damage types use bludgeoning for the third. It's pretty odd that they chose blunt, really.

And just to clarify: I'm not saying Machinist *will* be blunt. I just think it's up in the air given the information we've got at the moment. There are valid reasons they could want it to be blunt and valid reasons for it to be piercing. We'll know in a couple days.

[Allyrion]

It's also possible, imo, that MCH will be able to provide the debuff itself, whatever it is.

Edit to add: Honestly I didn't realize they used blunt in game to refer to MNK damage. That's not really the best term for them to use since blunt has two connotations--the one being how you're normally using it, a "blunt-edge" weapon that's not intended for serious harm, and the other being "bludgeoning." Most games with these three damage types use bludgeoning for the third. It's pretty odd that they chose blunt, really.

I don't really get that connotation.
Hammer, mace, cudgels are blunt weapons.
I don't think you need to call it bludgeoning to connote an intent to harm.
There's Blunt force Trauma and Injuries which connote that.


While monks use fist weapons, I think their damage type simply lies in them using their body for the damage and the weapons just compliment that.

MNK is a special case, where I don't think the damage type needs to match the weapon as much as the nature of the job itself.
Any type of kicks can obviously be counted as Blunt too. So the damage type accounts for the weapon not being at the core of their type of attacking.

[ChaozK]

One of the Nantes translations mentioned that machinist would be using piercing damage, though i have trouble finding the correct one with how many were released in the last few weeks. Maybe anyone still has the link?

[Alahra]

I don't really get that connotation.
Hammer, mace, cudgels are blunt weapons.
I don't think you need to call it bludgeoning to connote an intent to harm.
There's Blunt force Trauma and Injuries which connote that.

Sure, but it has another meaning as well (and it's the primary one):

1. (of a knife, pencil, etc.) having a worn-down edge or point; not sharp.
"a blunt knife"

Bludgeoning is more clear as a result (and it's why most PnP games use that instead). I looked back and FFXI also used Blunt, so naturally they would carry it forward since most of the team has been the same between the two games.

As for Machinist specifically, if they did mention piercing in one of the interviews, that probably seals it. Either type would have made sense, depending on the descriptive elements (a cannonball works on the same principle as a black powder musket bullet, and I don't think anyone would call a cannonball a piercing weapon). It was really a matter of how much synergy they wanted Machinist to have with DRG. If the damage is indeed piercing (and it probably is), it's reasonable to assume they do intend for BRD and Machinist to not really be used together (though I would still imagine one BRD and one Machinist will be more effective than two Bards currently is).

[Sessurea]

go drg, unless you have CRAZY good ping.

Nin looks like a srs pain in the ass after expansion. Positionals, dots/second etc, but the hardest thing to deal with is the inconsistent mudra lag. Muscle memory and rhythm play no part will not be applicable to mudra if u live with bad ping ( like me ), and it is quite obviously a system based upon rhythm and muscle memory, and not looking at boxes to see if they have cooled down correctly.

Drg on the other hand is lovely. The dps class with least decision making. Very straight forward. Very fun and very good.

[Zophar]

Either type would have made sense

Except that piercing, again, makes considerably much, much, much more sense, for so very many, reasons, which I don't feel like repeating.

(a cannonball works on the same principle as a black powder musket bullet, and I don't think anyone would call a cannonball a piercing weapon).

While technically, you're not completely wrong, no person would ever consider a musket ball a blunt weapon. A round ball, though it may be, it's ultimate effect is to pierce it's target. You get shot by a musket bullet, or get shot by a modern day bullet, and the results are the same. It's piercing. If you were talking about rubber bullets, or beanbag rounds, or potatoes, THOSE would qualify as blunt rounds, as their entire purpose is to hit and disable an opponent with non lethal, blunt force.