Eight Fixes to Make These Changes Good.

[Rentahamster]

Lancer is supposed to be a Dragoon, not a Dark Knight.

There isn't any definitive definition of what a "dragoon" is "supposed" to be. A "dragoon" is going to be whatever the devs want it to be. The problem is that this is not a good change comes from your subjective perspective, not from an objective one.

Conjurers do not have enough offensive abilities for Solo.

At the early levels, perhaps. There's not enough info to make a definitive statement about this yet.

Reactionary Skill(Phalanx, Haymaker, Fracture and Feint) should not be class specific.

Why not? I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be. It gives each class something unique.

Mages do not have enough spells. Mages should always have more skills than Melees

Perhaps. Again, not enough info yet to know how this will play out.

There is a severe lack of Enfeebling Magic.

There are lots of additional effects to magic now when you do it in a combo.

Classes are too closely aligned with Jobs. There should be a noticeable difference between the two.

Classes are closely aligned with jobs because they're designed to be like those classes, only with more role-specific attributes. Why should there be a "noticeable difference"?

Puglist Elemental Skills will not be effective in Combat against the Majority of Creatures in Game. (Low Damage + Elemental Resistance = Lower Damage)

That's why you use the element that the target monster is weak to.

Archer's Bow should not be an Auto Attack.

Yes it should. Not having a ranged auto attack is one of archers most glaring weaknesses regarding mobility. Besides, you can just not target a mob if you don't want to attack it.

[PrettyPrincess]

There isn't any definitive definition of what a "dragoon" is "supposed" to be. A "dragoon" is going to be whatever the devs want it to be. The problem is that this is not a good change comes from your subjective perspective, not from an objective one.


At the early levels, perhaps. There's not enough info to make a definitive statement about this yet.


Why not? I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be. It gives each class something unique.


Perhaps. Again, not enough info yet to know how this will play out.


There are lots of additional effects to magic now when you do it in a combo.


Classes are closely aligned with jobs because they're designed to be like those classes, only with more role-specific attributes. Why should there be a "noticeable difference"?


That's why you use the element that the target monster is weak to.


Yes it should. Not having a ranged auto attack is one of archers most glaring weaknesses regarding mobility. Besides, you can just not target a mob if you don't want to attack it.

I agree .

[Vanguard319]

I agree .

As far as archer goes I disagree, as we are rooted to the ground while firing, autoattack would actually make our mobility even worse than it already is, never mind the fact that shadowbind would be rendered useless. Ever played laser tag? even an expert shot will lose a significant amount of accuracy and prescision if firing from the hip or on the move, the same applies to archery. Not having a ranged autoattack makes us more mobile than we would otherwise, and being rooted would be an acceptable weakness if the devs didn't gimp our damage as badly as they did.

[Kiote]

There isn't any definitive definition of what a "dragoon" is "supposed" to be. A "dragoon" is going to be whatever the devs want it to be. The problem is that this is not a good change comes from your subjective perspective, not from an objective one.

A Dragoon is a Fighter who a: Ecels at killing Dragons or b:Is versed in the skills of dragons

A Dark Knight is a Fight who sacrificed body and soul for the power to destroy things.

At the early levels, perhaps. There's not enough info to make a definitive statement about this yet.

They do not even have weapons skills and two offensive spells is not significant.

Why not? I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be. It gives each class something unique.

There is no reason to restrict these to a single class. They add a significant level of Engagment to Combat and reduce the level of monotony to Auto Attack. If you did notice. How three manual attacks were not listed in these changes.

Perhaps. Again, not enough info yet to know how this will play out.

This is not a perhaps. Since the beginning of the series Final Fantasy Mages have had a plethora of Spells from which to chose from. If the goal is to make the game more final fantasy like, you don't restrict fundamental aspects of the series.

There are lots of additional effects to magic now when you do it in a combo.

The purpose of enfeebling magic to quickly inhibit enemies without drawing to much attention to yourself. To tack these effects onto Heavy damage spells defeats their purpose and diminishes the depth of the class.

Classes are closely aligned with jobs because they're designed to be like those classes, only with more role-specific attributes. Why should there be a "noticeable difference"?

Classes are supposed to operate independently of Jobs. They are supposed to be effect on there own, not gimped versions of their Job.

That's why you use the element that the target monster is weak to.

That would be fine if you had them all but you dont.

Yes it should. Not having a ranged auto attack is one of archers most glaring weaknesses regarding mobility. Besides, you can just not target a mob if you don't want to attack it.

No, not having Auto attack was the saving Grace of the Archer Class. It's ability to specifically time when it unleashed massive damage was the one thing that truly set it apart from every other class.