Thread: Reconvene the Magic Council Please - Spell names in 5.0 please fix. [Request]

Cure and Cure II: Single target heal
Cure III: Multi target heal centering on a selected target
Medica I and Medica II: Multi target heal centering on self

This isn't complicated.

Cure and Cure II stay the same.
Cure III is renamed to Cura
Medica I and Medica II stays the same.

Cura is naturally more powerful than regular Cure, which is reflected in potency.

Fire, Fire III and Fire IV: Single target damage
Fire II: Multi target damage centering around the target

For this we apply the same rules as before.

Fire II becomes Fira. The only thing inconsistent with before is that Fira has less potency than Fire, which is an inconsistency that already exists, so it only fixes 1 out of 2 inconsistencies, which is better than 0.

Thunder III is renamed to Thunder II
Thunder II and Thunder IV are renamed to Thundara and Thundaga

This also remains consistent with -ara -aga being multi target centered around your target, but has a similar potency problem with Fire, which is simply an already existing problem that will remain unfixed.

Blizzard is the complicated one. Blizzard III and IV would be renamed to Blizzard II and III, which remains consistent. Blizzard II is does not center around a target, but centers around yourself. As such I would suggest not renaming this Blizzara. Of course, if this is the only one with such an inconsistency, this is still overall an improvement.

Originally Posted by Freyt

Blizzard is the complicated one. Blizzard III and IV would be renamed to Blizzard II and III, which remains consistent. Blizzard II is does not center around a target, but centers around yourself. As such I would suggest not renaming this Blizzara. Of course, if this is the only one with such an inconsistency, this is still overall an improvement.

Eh, I'm sure calling it Blizzara wouldn't make it THAT confusing, it's still an AoE version of Blizzard just like how Fira would be an AoE version of Fire.
Hell, if you want it to be consistent with things that are already in XIV, Amon in Syrcus Tower has an attack called Blizzaga Forte which operates just like a bigger version of Blizzard 2, so you could always go with that minus the "Forte".

Originally Posted by Freyt

Blizzard is the complicated one. Blizzard III and IV would be renamed to Blizzard II and III, which remains consistent. Blizzard II is does not center around a target, but centers around yourself. As such I would suggest not renaming this Blizzara. Of course, if this is the only one with such an inconsistency, this is still overall an improvement.

Which is why I figured going with FFXI's system just won't work (especially as AoE's on targets are -ga spells, while AoE's casts around the caster are called -ra). With the smaller spell list compared to FFXI, it just looks inconsistent and dumb (three Fire spells with numbers and a single fire spell called Fira). It's because of this why I suggested maybe renaming the AoE spells. Fire II - Scorch, Blizzard II - Frost and Thunder II/IV - Storm/Stormga. Going that route can easily allow SE to nix the numbers for BLM.

For WHM, they won't need to have their AoE spells renamed to something else... unless they get a fourth Aero in the next expansion and it's not an AoE.

Originally Posted by Ultima

By the way, the Cure/Cura/Curaga naming scheme exists in pretty much every other language's version of XIV, just not NA because they think we're stupid. The very lore that started this thread, I think in Japanese says they switched from numbers to the spell suffix system.

Not quite. French client uses words instead of suffixes. Examples: Soin, Extra Soin and Mega Soin.

We could rename Blizzard II into Frost. Freeze is a spell that already exists, that is a higher potency, but is ground targeted. They function similarly but different still. The name relation serves to imply that.

I agree with the OP. The numbers are fine when they're meaningful, i.e. when they actually indicate a higher power of the same type of spell. But the name itself should indicate when we're dealing with a completely different type of spell. Using suffixes for types and numbers for potency makes both type and potency more clear.

(As an added bonus, it would satisfy both people nostalgic for the traditional FF suffix naming and those who find numbers clearer than suffixes, since it uses both where each works best.)

Originally Posted by KisaiTenshi

In Japanese 'ga' is the topic marker in a sentence. In English there is no equivalent.

minor FYI: While there is a particle "ga" in Japanese that marks the subject of a sentence, the "-ga" / "-aga" suffixes on spell names are not that particle. They're just a phonetic character either tacked onto the end of the word or replacing the last character of the word. For instance, Firaga is written ファイガ (phonetic FAIGA) in Japanese, not ファイアが (phonetic FAIA followed by subject particle ga).

Originally Posted by Vstarstruck

I really do not get why they went this route when FFXI had cura line (1-III ) Curaga (I - V) and cure (I- VI)
Firaja, Firaga (I-III) Fira (I-III)

So why do we have fire II when it has nothing to do with fire I or Fire III, thunder II/ thunder IV when they are not related to thunder I or thunder III?

Personally, I'd love to see an upgrade to "Fire 2" but what do they call it... "Fire 5"... or give us a "Fire 5" and then make it "Fire 6"... it presents problems as the game continues to grow.

That's why I'm hoping we can get some traction on this, I don't see it happening until an expansion when so much is updated and changed.

To illistrate the changes a bit more:

Fire 1 ===> Fire 1
Fire 3 ===> Fire 2
Fire 4 ===> Fire 3

Fire 2 ===> Firaga 1
New Spell Upgrade ===> Firaga 2

Thunder 1 ===> Thunder 1
Thunder 3 ===> Thunder 2

Thunder 2 ===> Thundaga 1
Thunder 4 ===> Thundaga 2