Thread: Clarification on cross-classing of abilities post 1.20?

•Upper tiers of an action (such as Fire II and Fire III) will be abolished in favor of a system wherein potency and MP cost are scaled based on the player’s level.

•Players will no longer be bound by level restrictions when setting actions from other classes.
For instance, a level 1 pugilist will be able to set a level 30 gladiator action. However, the effectiveness of that action will be scaled down accordingly.

So it seems pretty clear if your a low lvl class that is cross-classing a high lvl ability from another class. However, what if its the reverse? Does the cross-classed skill scale to your current high lvl class or to the level of your low level class?

For instance, what if I am a Lvl 50 Gla and want to equip Second Wind from my lvl 20 Pug? Does Second Wind scale up in potency based on my Gla's lvl or my Pug's lvl? Before it was based on what tier that ability was so the clear answer would have been to get Second Wind 2. Anyways, just something I was thinking about.

Obviously it does. It's not even ambiguous.

Originally Posted by Answa

Obviously it does. It's not even ambiguous.

I would think it would not. In my mind if my CNJ is level 20 and my ARC is level 50 and I equip cure as ARC I wouldn't think it would be scaled up past 20 as that is how skilled at CNJ abilities I am. However that is applying logic to this system so I am probably wrong :P

Not this again...

It is both clear and logical, let me point you to the relevant sections:

From the Class Reforms announcement:

Section 1, Item 3

Upper tiers of an action (such as Fire II and Fire III) will be abolished in favor of a system wherein potency and MP cost are scaled based on the player’s level.

Section 5

As mentioned under 1. Class-specific Actions, upper tier actions will be abolished in favor of scaling the potency of the base action according to level. The effectiveness and MP cost of the action will be dependent upon the level of your current class.

This may leave you wondering if a level 50 archer would cast cure with the same proficiency as a level 50 conjurer. This concern is addressed here:

Section 4, Item 4

All traits will be made class-exclusive.
Adjustments will be made so that certain actions will only unleash their full potential when paired with traits belonging to the same class.

Thank you for the quote for section 5, I had indeed previously misread the parts you bolded.

While it certainly looks like it will work that way I disagree that it should work that way. I don't think a 50 ARC with a 20 CNJ should heal as well as a 50 ARC with a 50 CNJ. But that is a different argument.

Imagine if it worked the way you propose though. If you wanted a level 4 conjurer ability then you would have to level conjurer to 50 to use that ability effectively across classes. It would make cross-classing more work than it's worth for most people and take away from every class' solo ability.

Originally Posted by TinnySnips

Imagine if it worked the way you propose though. If you wanted a level 4 conjurer ability then you would have to level conjurer to 50 to use that ability effectively across classes. It would make cross-classing more work than it's worth for most people and take away from every class' solo ability.

Exactly, it would be quite a deterrent to have to level every single class so that you wouldn't be gimped.

@Answa, I work long long long hours at work sometimes, and maybe Im not always at my best, so thanks for nothing^^.

@TinnySnips, Thanks so much for pointing that out. That part in section 5 makes it perfectly clear. I was paying so much attention to the part in section 1 to the exclusion of all else.

Upper tiers of an action (such as Fire II and Fire III) will be abolished in favor of a system wherein potency and MP cost are scaled based on the player’s level.

Read it as could mean current level or could mean level of the ability the class was from.

LOL ok thread over, wasnt trying to start anything I was just genuinely curious. Thanks again for the clarification TinnySnips.

I probably came across as harsh in my first reply. Sorry for that. I saw the question and had flashbacks of 3 weeks ago when the same question resulted in a 15-page thread. I quoted the same sections in that thread, yet some flatly refused to believe that the question was answered...