Confusion: Archer to Bard? Where is the Ranger Job?

[Mairuzu]

Can't wait to see some ugly looking highlanders play me some tunes on their little harps

[RemVye]

How about you all calm down and wait until the job information is released... or better yet, until it's in the game before you make a judgement about it.

Regardless of "archer turning to bard doesn't make sense" (I think it does... but anyway) how do you know it's going to be support onry? They might be effective at DD while also providing buffs.

Just wait and see.... that's all we can do. Either way, it will be fun.

[Lavani]

Because a bard is a support class in final fantasy. They should have added bard AFTER the RNG job.

[PrettyPrincess]

what is the difference between an archer and ranger?

[Scherwiz]

what is the difference between an archer and ranger?

You dont know?!



It's the hat.

In all seriousness though, they don't really play the same imo, but that could just be me.

[Sheth]

I hope they make parties more meaningful before they add other jobs, the mechanics need work and the mosnters you exp on are almost all the same so debuffing and buffing is meaningless just let your mages spam stone skin....monsters are all the same they just look different fighting strategy is always the same...so why add more jobs? when monsters are all the same it dosen't make any sense...

[ereskigal]

I personal think SE should have made LNC or MRD into brd then they can feel how arc's feel about this. Turn the table alittle.

[Anonymoose]

what is the difference between an archer and ranger?

In the lore, the differences are a lot like the real world, honestly. The fact that Rangers in Final Fantasy have generally used Bows, that's not the identity of the job by any means at all. The notion that there's a necessary link is a fallacy brought on by previous experience. However, Rangers have also been known to wield:

• Boomerangs (Final Fantasy II, XI)
• Daggers (Final Fantasy V, XI, A2)
• Bouncyballs (Final Fantasy X)
• Crossbows (Final Fantasy XI)
• Guns (Final Fantasy XI)

The abilities, however, have the common theme of nature. This is because a Ranger isn't necessarily a "User of ranged attacks" as much as it is "Ranges over the terrain and is a master of everything on it." Think less FFXI ranger (though it did have Widescan...) and think more mountain ranger. Or Aragorn. Or any other use of Ranger outside of Final Fantasy.

Many do fight from a distance and have abilities like Aim, but the nature theme extends to tracking animals, calling on their abilities, etc. Also, Rangers are more reliant on doing DAMAGE via ranged attacks where as ARCHERS are more reliant on tactical damage dealing, as in attacks that, while they do a bit of damage, more importantly do things like control enmity, inflict status effects, bind the enemy, etc.

Ironically enough, one of the Rangers from FFV was dressed in a bard outfit.

Either way, Ranger uses a LOT more than bows, and Archer has always been a status inflicting class. Giving it Bard makes 10x more sense than anybody has given it credit for so far.

Seriously; naysayers on this topic, I invite you to disprove any of this and state a counter-argument more productive than, "I don't want to do any support! I JUST WANT: BANG BANG BANG!"

[PrettyPrincess]

In the lore, the differences are a lot like the real world, honestly. The fact that Rangers in Final Fantasy have generally used Bows, that's not the identity of the job by any means at all. The notion that there's a necessary link is a fallacy brought on by previous experience. However, Rangers have also been known to wield:

• Boomerangs (Final Fantasy II, XI)
• Daggers (Final Fantasy V, XI, A2)
• Bouncyballs (Final Fantasy X)
• Crossbows (Final Fantasy XI)
• Guns (Final Fantasy XI)

The abilities, however, have the common theme of nature. Many do fight from a distance and have abilities like Aim, but the nature theme extends to tracking animals, calling on their abilities, etc. Also, Rangers are more reliant on doing DAMAGE via ranged attacks where as ARCHERS are more reliant on tactical damage dealing, as in attacks that, while they do a bit of damage, more importantly do things like control enmity, inflict status effects, bind the enemy, etc.

Ironically enough, one of the Rangers from FFV was dressed in a bard outfit.

Either way, Ranger uses a LOT more than bows, and Archer has always been a status inflicting class. Giving it Bard makes 10x more sense than anybody has given it credit for so far.

Seriously; naysayers on this topic, I invite you to disprove any of this and state a counter-argument more productive than, "I don't want to do any support! I JUST WANT: BANG BANG BANG!"

MOAR SENSE I LOVE IT

[Scherwiz]

In the lore, the differences are a lot like the real world, honestly. The fact that Rangers in Final Fantasy have generally used Bows, that's not the identity of the job by any means at all. The notion that there's a necessary link is a fallacy brought on by previous experience. However, Rangers have also been known to wield:

• Boomerangs (Final Fantasy II, XI)
• Daggers (Final Fantasy V, XI, A2)
• Bouncyballs (Final Fantasy X)
• Crossbows (Final Fantasy XI)
• Guns (Final Fantasy XI)

The abilities, however, have the common theme of nature. This is because a Ranger isn't necessarily a "User of ranged attacks" as much as it is "Ranges over the terrain and is a master of everything on it." Think less FFXI ranger (though it did have Widescan...) and think more mountain ranger. Or Aragorn. Or any other use of Ranger outside of Final Fantasy.

Many do fight from a distance and have abilities like Aim, but the nature theme extends to tracking animals, calling on their abilities, etc. Also, Rangers are more reliant on doing DAMAGE via ranged attacks where as ARCHERS are more reliant on tactical damage dealing, as in attacks that, while they do a bit of damage, more importantly do things like control enmity, inflict status effects, bind the enemy, etc.

Ironically enough, one of the Rangers from FFV was dressed in a bard outfit.

Either way, Ranger uses a LOT more than bows, and Archer has always been a status inflicting class. Giving it Bard makes 10x more sense than anybody has given it credit for so far.

Seriously; naysayers on this topic, I invite you to disprove any of this and state a counter-argument more productive than, "I don't want to do any support! I JUST WANT: BANG BANG BANG!"

Yes, thank you, that was much more than I was willing to type. Also, they do not have to disprove anything, it boils down to what some people want from a job, like the LNC's campaigning against Wyverns for example. While you or I may not care that the job is BRD, others want a ranged damage dealer, and I feel the remedy to this lies within the Archer class itself if they can rebalance it correcly.