Suggestion : Give each job two distincts "purpose" to build on future customization

[Reynhart]

Disclaimer : I'll mainly take tanks as example because it's the role I play the most, but I'm sure we can do the same with each job

Character custimization is, in my opinion, a big lack in the game. Apart from your gear, you're just the same as everybody else, when it comes to your job.
The reason why they don't want to include it is, officialy, the fear of increasing discrimination based on that. And people tend to agree saying that there will always be an optimal way, so what's the point of adding another.

My answer : give each jobs several purpose

The easiest example is for tanks. Most of the time, in 8-man content, you have a Main Tank and an Off Tank. And it's common sense that those two don't need the same thing. Thus, wether you prefer playing as a MT or an OT, maybe you'd like to build your character towards it, and you could have a skill tree where one branch gives more edge to MT, and one, to OT.

For example, as a MT, you could use traits to increase the enmity bonus on Savage Blade, or even adding one on Royal Authority. You could also gain a trait to allow Shield to block magic attacks, which is mostly useless for an OT. This way, even if people theorycraft an optimal way for each role, you'll still end with twice the type of tanks.
Of course, you could end in Duty Finder with two tanks specialized in the same role, but "not being optimal doesn't" mean "can't clear the content", and you can already end with two PLD or two WHM, thus having a not optimal setup, without any real issue in the end.

For healers, maybe you could split between single target traits and multiple targets...for DPS, burst damage vs sustain damage, maybe ?

[Jonnycbad]

The easiest example is for tanks. Most of the time, in 8-man content, you have a Main Tank and an Off Tank. And it's common sense that those two don't need the same thing. Thus, wether you prefer playing as a MT or an OT, maybe you'd like to build your character towards it, and you could have a skill tree where one branch gives more edge to MT, and one, to OT.

This is obviated with Tank Stance and DPS stance, which are toggled depending on if the person is main or off tank.

[Reynhart]

This is obviated with Tank Stance and DPS stance, which are toggled depending on if the person is main or off tank.

Stances are one thing but the meta clearly favors (responsible) DPS stance even for MT...in fact, this idea is especially to give back a real MT or OT build.
These traits would be better designed towards each type of tank. An enmity boost on Savage Blade or Royal Authority would only benefit a MT, for example.

[Grimoire-M]

There are currently three classes that would clearly benefit from giving them two distinct roles:

• Arcanist, where SMN and SCH are each role, and both would get virtually no changes.
• Marauder, who could be given a DPS version of WAR with a more complicated & interactive rotation, while keeping the current WAR Offtank.
• Astrologian, who would get the Nocturnal & Diurnal Sect specialization that is desperately needed to give the former buffs.

There are six more that you can argue for as well, but I'll admit they're all a stretch and go against the design SE has set out so far:

• Bard and Machinist can trade their TP/MP restore utility away for a pure DPS role (Probably taking WM/GB with them).
• Black Mage could flip Astral Fire/Umbral Ice around and have their rotation tweaked into an Ice specialization, ideally restoring the proc gameplay Enochian took away.
• Dragoon could potentially tank cause they've got a solid enough base kit and the armor to do it with more support.
• Dark Knight can follow the same logic as Warrior to get a DPS role, though it would require more effort.
• White Mage would most likely get another healing role, probably focusing on big heals and procs instead of regens, since Conjurer supports that concept already.

The question from there is: What do the rest of the classes do? Paladin isn't suited to DPS, so the only real alternatives are a tank with more AoE and offtank support, some sort of utility DPS spec like Bard/Machinist but with Auras, or a hacked together healing role, in order of feasibility.

Also Monk and Ninja are very self-contained classes that are difficult to modify meaningfully, so my only guess is that they would get new kits that experiment with melee roles that don't rely on 1-2-3-1-2-3-kill-me-please, since the combo system feels overused now and would feel more oppressive if multiple roles were given to each class and at least a few didn't try to branch away from it. However, it's not clear what that would look like, at all. My guess is Ninja would get more DoTs and cooldowns that gave positional bonuses while Monk would stack and spend GL rapidly on various ogcds.

[Reynhart]

There are currently three classes that would clearly benefit from giving them two distinct roles

Just to be clear, this is not about severals "roles" but different spec. They already said that they're not fond of the idea of multiple roles (Which is really sad, in my opinion)
SMN would still be a pure DPS, but maybe you can have either traits to enhance your DoTs for more sustained and AoE damage, of traits to enhance your pet and your direct damaging spells, for more burst damage

Paladin isn't suited to DPS

It isn't suited for DPS...as it is. If you had trait to enhance the job, it could very well be. Like I said above, if you want to max your DPS, you want to avoid using RoH as much as you can. But, when you're MT, not using it means building less enmity. If you had a trait to give an Enmity boost to RA, it would solve the problem. But as an OT, you clearly wouldn't want enmity, so you'd probably chose another trait.

This could create two templates for PLD, one that focuses on MT with higher enmity, better block rate, etc...and the other on OT, with higher DPS or support skills.
What is interesting is that you could still keep the same meta, where everything focuses on more DPS even when designing traits for tanks. The higher enmity gain for more RA combo, a better block for more frequent Shield Swipe proc, etc...

I haven't played Ninja, but what I know about MNK is that it's a really good sustained DPS, but with less burst damage. Maybe you could add traits to push it in that direction.

[Grimoire-M]

Just to be clear, this is not about severals "roles" but different spec. They already said that they're not fond of the idea of multiple roles (Which is really sad, in my opinion)
SMN would still be a pure DPS, but maybe you can have either traits to enhance your DoTs for more sustained and AoE damage, of traits to enhance your pet and your direct damaging spells, for more burst damage

Specialization would be the most appropriate word for what we're looking for, since we're both using it.I used the word Role because that seemed to be what you were asking for. I'll use it the way SE has used it from here-on.

It isn't suited for DPS...as it is. If you had trait to enhance the job, it could very well be. Like I said above, if you want to max your DPS, you want to avoid using RoH as much as you can. But, when you're MT, not using it means building less enmity. If you had a trait to give an Enmity boost to RA, it would solve the problem. But as an OT, you clearly wouldn't want enmity, so you'd probably chose another trait.

This could create two templates for PLD, one that focuses on MT with higher enmity, better block rate, etc...and the other on OT, with higher DPS or support skills.
What is interesting is that you could still keep the same meta, where everything focuses on more DPS even when designing traits for tanks. The higher enmity gain for more RA combo, a better block for more frequent Shield Swipe proc, etc...

I haven't played Ninja, but what I know about MNK is that it's a really good sustained DPS, but with less burst damage. Maybe you could add traits to push it in that direction.

We at least agree that we want each class to be used in multiple ways, and potentially, this can mean they take on multiple roles, depending on the specialization. Arcanist has two specializations already with the Summoner/Scholar split, and I would expect SE to re-implement the class in a new system to support that division. Because of this, whatever new system is implemented, it has to be able to support the use of traits and abilities. I'd expect a limited version of the cross class system to be implemented exclusively for job abilities if SE doesn't want to change what we have currently.

Ninja has branching combos, it's more limited than Monk in that respect. Mudras are basically their own oGCD combo system, while the rest of their kit is fairly straightforward and full of random oGCDs and cooldowns.

[Reynhart]

Specialization would be the most appropriate word for what we're looking for, since we're both using it.I used the word Role because that seemed to be what you were asking for.

That's why I used "purpose" and not "role" in my title. But indeed, I used "role" once in my initial post. Slip of the tongue.

Because of this, whatever new system is implemented, it has to be able to support the use of traits and abilities. I'd expect a limited version of the cross class system to be implemented exclusively for job abilities if SE doesn't want to change what we have currently.

I really think they should expand the trait system for the next expansion. Especially because we have already lots of skills to use and not that many shortcuts to access them on the fly.

[Yhximott]

I can't say how useful it'd be to split purposes with specs rather than introduce more trees like ACN. One would inevitably end up better than the other and become exclusively used.

On the contrary, splitting more "classes" into different Jobs would be delightful. I quote "class" since I think it'd be best used on DRK and the upcoming SAM.

DRK should expand so that Rielle takes up the path, but as a DPS and uses HP sacs and saps rather than enmity draws and MP, and teaches you how to become a BLD (Blood Knight) the DPS parallel to DRK.

SAM should be split into Samurai (Tank) and RON (Ronin: DPS). SAM would enfeeble and focus to mitigate damage, and RON would give up enmity and for damage.

It could be expanded into other jobs retroactively as well, like giving CNJ a WHM path and a GEO (Geomancer) Which could be the DPS or preferably Tank mage paths.

[Reynhart]

One would inevitably end up better than the other and become exclusively used.

So, please answer this question : Is it better to MT or OT ?

[liljramos88]

Love the diversity concept something has to be done about it. We either find a way to split each job with skill trees or have the classes split into different jobs. Example conjurer to WHM or GEO. I was thinking why not add another weapon to each job that alters the jobs play style. I just wrote a topic on it. But here is a brief example take Bard it could equip a bow for dps or equip a flute to heal. So depends on what weapon you have on hand your skills u have will change according.